Around the same time, reports began circulating that the Michigan-based medical technology giant was facing a major cyber incident. A voicemail at its US headquarters referenced a ‘building emergency’ Internally, operations were disrupted. Externally, questions were mounting.

Then came the claim. A hacktivist group known as Handala Hack Team, believed to have links to Iranian intelligence, posted a lengthy statement on Telegram, claiming responsibility for a large-scale data-wiping attack. According to the group, more than 200,000 systems, servers, and devices across 79 countries had been wiped. No ransom demand, negotiation, just erasure.

Right now, it is still unclear how much damage has actually been done, and the claims haven’t been independently confirmed. But even the possibility of an attack at that scale targeting a company so deeply embedded in global healthcare has sent ripples far beyond the organisation itself. Because Stryker is not just another corporate name.

Its products sit inside operating rooms. Its systems support surgical workflows. Its supply chains feed directly into hospitals, clinics, and critical care environments. So, when something like this happens, the impact does not stay contained; it spreads.

Not Just Another Breach

For years, cyberattacks have followed a familiar pattern. Break in, encrypt systems, demand payment. Ransomware became almost routine, but this incident doesn’t quite fit that mould. There is no clear financial motive. No demand. No obvious attempt to monetise the breach.

Instead, what is being described if the claims hold is something more destructive. A wiper-style attack, designed not to extract value, but to remove it entirely. That distinction matters.

Errol Weiss, Chief Security Officer at Health-ISAC, sees this as part of a broader shift.

“We are absolutely seeing a shift toward disruption-focused attacks in healthcare, and it is tightly linked to the broader geopolitical tensions. Iran-aligned and sympathetic hacktivist groups have been increasingly targeting US and Israeli critical infrastructure to make political statements and retaliate for actions against Iran since the war escalated in late February,” Weiss told International Finance.

In other words, what he meant was that the timing isn’t random. The digital world is increasingly reflecting real-world tensions, including those involving Iran and the United States. Healthcare, somewhat unexpectedly, is becoming a part of that equation.

Weiss puts it plainly: “Destructive activity against healthcare and its supply chain is not just about money anymore. It is about sending a message, and creating maximum operational and psychological impact.”

Authorised Tools Used In Unauthorised Ways

If the intent is shifting, so are the methods. One of the more striking aspects of this incident is the reported use of Microsoft Intune, a legitimate enterprise device management platform, to carry out system wipes. No obvious malware, no dramatic breach signature, just authorised tools, used in unauthorised ways. It’s subtle, quiet, and incredibly effective.

Weiss explains why this approach is so difficult to defend against: “Abusing legitimate tools like Microsoft Intune is a classic ‘living off the land’ tactic, and it is incredibly hard to spot because it looks like normal administrative and IT activity.”

That is the uncomfortable reality. The attack does not look like an attack. It looks like a routine admin action, which means traditional detection methods, the ones designed to spot malicious software, don’t always work. That leaves organisations exposed in ways they are not always prepared for.

Weiss points to a critical gap. He says, “For high-risk actions, like issuing a device wipe, there should be built-in controls such as dual-admin approval, so a single compromised account cannot trigger a catastrophic event.”

One account, one mistake, one breach, and suddenly, thousands of systems can disappear.

Not Entirely New, But Potentially Escalating

Chester Wisniewski, Global Field CTO at Sophos, offers a slightly more cautious take on whether this marks a definitive shift.

“Overall, no, but in this case, we might begin to see this shift. Historically, Iran has utilised ‘wiper’ attacks. If they ramp up their activity. These attacks might become more prevalent,” he told International Finance.

While disruption-focused attacks are not yet dominant, the conditions are there, and they may be evolving.

On the use of legitimate tools, Wisniewski is clear that this is not new.

“Living off the land has been very common for at least a decade now. This technique was even used during the Target breach in 2013,” he said.

“What’s changed is the context, and the scale. Looking for common strains of malware is still important, but careful monitoring of behaviour and unusual tool usage is essential for an effective defence,” he added.

In other words, organisations need to rethink what ‘normal’ looks like inside their own systems, because attackers are already doing that.

The Ripple Effect Nobody Talks About

When a company like Stryker is disrupted, the immediate assumption is straightforward: hospitals will feel the impact. But Weiss highlights something more nuanced and, in some ways, more concerning.

He says, “The healthcare supply chain is deeply interconnected, but paradoxically, much of the downstream fallout we see is actually self-inflicted.”

It’s a surprising statement, but it makes sense.

“Hyper-conditioned to fear a ransomware or malware outbreak, many organisations default to a knee-jerk reaction: proactively severing B2B connections. That instinct to isolate, disconnect, protect is understandable, but it can backfire,” he said.

“That panic is what frequently escalates a targeted incident into a widespread service disruption. The damage doesn’t just come from the attack. It comes from the reaction to it. In a sector like healthcare, where timing and coordination matter, those reactions can have real consequences,” he added.

A Sector Under Pressure

There is an ongoing debate about whether healthcare is being specifically targeted or simply exposed.

Weiss says, “Healthcare is a prime target because its disruption creates immediate, tangible panic and maximum pain at a very personal level. Hospitals aren’t just infrastructure; they’re emotional infrastructure. Disrupt them, and the impact is immediate and visible.”

“The historical underinvestment in cybersecurity and reliance on complex, fragile supply chains make the health sector a highly vulnerable pressure point during global conflicts,” he added.

However, Wisniewski takes a more measured stance: “I am not sure there is evidence for this…the majority of attacks are opportunistic.”

It’s a subtle difference in interpretation, but perhaps both can be true. Healthcare may not always be the intended target, but it remains one of the most impactful ones.

Where It Breaks: Identity And Trust

If there is a single thread running through incidents like this, it is identity. Who has access, who can act, and who is trusted.

Wisniewski points to a striking statistic: “Almost 70% of incidents we responded to in 2025 were the result of some sort of identity compromise. That is not a technical failure. That is a trust failure.”

Credentials stolen, access abused, systems misused. Once inside, attackers don’t need to force their way through; they just walk.

Highlights another dimension of the problem, Weiss said, “Too many healthcare organisations still treat their centralised device management platforms as inherently trusted infrastructure rather than primary attack surfaces.”

This assumption that certain systems are safe creates blind spots, and attackers tend to find those first.

Recovery Isn’t Just About Numbers

The scale of the alleged attack – tens or even hundreds of thousands of systems – sounds overwhelming, and it is. But not all systems are equal.

As Chester Wisniewski explains, “It is important to differentiate quantity from importance.”

Many endpoints, such as laptops and desktops, can be rebuilt slowly and with significant effort, but in a relatively predictable way. What’s far more challenging to restore are the on-premise servers and cloud infrastructure that sit at the core of operations.

Those systems are different. They are not just devices; they represent the functioning backbone of the business. Restoring them is not simply an IT exercise; it becomes a business-critical process that can define how quickly an organisation recovers.

Are We Ready for What Comes Next?

This is where the conversation shifts from analysis to something more serious. Because if this incident is not an outlier, but a preview of what is coming, then the question becomes unavoidable: are we actually ready?

Errol Weiss doesn’t hesitate in his response, stating, “Candidly, the healthcare sector is drastically underprepared. Which brings us to the part that is difficult to ignore: If hospitals are left fighting these large-scale fires alone, people could die.”

This is not framed as a distant possibility. It reads more like a warning.

What Needs To Change

There is no single fix here, no silver bullet that can eliminate the risk. But there are clear starting points.

Wisniewski keeps it simple: keep firewalls and VPNs updated, enforce strong MFA, and watch closely for identity misuse. Basic steps, but they only matter if you actually stick to them.

At the same time, Weiss argues for stronger safeguards and a more collaborative approach.

He said, “Organisations should immediately lock down their administrative environments, but defence cannot happen in a silo. Because attackers are already sharing knowledge and evolving together, defenders need to do the same.”

More Than Just a Cyber Incident

The claims surrounding this attack may ultimately turn out to be exaggerated. It’s also possible that the disruption will be contained. In a few weeks, this may just become another case study in a long history of cyber incidents. However, it doesn’t quite feel that way, because this incident represents something much larger.

Cyberattacks are not just about data or money anymore. They are about disruption, sending a message, and hitting systems people depend on most. When something like this hits a company like Stryker, it doesn’t stay online; it spills into hospitals, supply chains, and real life.

The post Why Microsoft Intune’s role in Stryker cyberattack is a scary prospect appeared first on International Finance.

After World War II and the division into East and West Germany, the country was largely demilitarised and focused on economic reconstruction under the security umbrella of the United States and the Soviet Union, and later under NATO.

With the end of the Cold War, much of Europe came to believe that large-scale continental war was behind them. However, Europeans had a wake-up call, first with the conflicts in the Balkans, followed by the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, and the invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. The war in Ukraine is a frozen conflict in its fourth year of devastation.

Europe’s rearmament is being driven by two major forces. Firstly, fear of an expansionist Russia and, secondly, growing doubts about whether the United States, under Donald Trump’s more isolationist approach, would fight on Europe’s behalf.

The age of European pacifism is ending. Germany, Poland, and other states are rearming, while France and the UK remain active military powers. Ukraine, forged by years of war, has become the continent’s most experienced military and a testing ground for 21st-century warfare.

With the US-Israel’s war with Iran, and the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, the great powers of Europe hesitantly find themselves in the Indian Ocean with fleets and submarines.

Great Shadow Of The Military Industrial Complex

The world seems to be in a security crisis. Heads of state are being abducted or assassinated (Venezuela and Iran). The sovereign territory of one nation is being invaded and annexed by another (the Ukraine war). There are accusations of genocide or ethnic cleansing (Israel-Palestine). And, the fight for resources, especially energy, is entering a new phase. Global economies are bracing for $200 a barrel. But even in war, there is money to be made.

Defence spending in EU member states has risen from €218 billion in 2021 to €381 billion in 2025. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), Europe accounts for around 21% of global military spending, which means more than one-fifth of the global military budget is now in Europe (a region that America took great care to ensure doesn’t rearm or militarise for the longest time).

It began as an emergency response to what was happening in Ukraine, a reaction to perceived Russian aggression. It quickly turned into structural rearmament as European governments grew more doubtful about the durability of US security guarantees.

Ursula Von Der Leyen, President of EU Commission, introduced REarm Europe on March 2, 2025, to EU member states. The new REarm Europe/ Readiness 2030 plan is an €800 billion framework in which members will push defence spending from 1.9% of their GDP in 2024 to 3.5% by 2030. The EU initiated a €150 billion loan programme titled ’SAFE’ (Security Action for Europe) to support joint weapons procurement, with projects generally requiring that no more than 35% of component costs come from outside the EU, the EEA-EFTA states, or Ukraine.

Additionally, €1 billion will be allocated to the European Defence Fund in 2026 for research and development, primarily for hypersonic missile defences, drone swarms, and next-generation tanks.

Rheinmetall CEO Armin Papperger told Reuters: “A new era of rearmament has commenced in Europe,” and that it brings “unprecedented growth opportunities” for the company.

Not too long ago, defence contractors in Europe struggled to convince governments to increase the budget and procurement. Now, supply chains and even politics can’t seem to keep up with the demand.

The Doves Slowly Turn into Hawks

The EU Parliament and think tanks believe that the EU’s defence budget has risen 63% since 2020. The estimate for 2025 was €381 billion, amounting to about 2% of the bloc’s GDP.

The EU spent around €88 billion in 2024 on equipment procurement. This number was at €130 billion in 2025, while R&D is said to have risen from €13 billion to €17 billion at the same time.

There have been accusations about Germany underspending for many years. Understandably so, because German militarisation was more frightening than a stingy defence budget for most of the world. However, Germany is now the biggest spender in Europe, and has answered its critics by sharply expanding its defence budget, with spending projected to rise to €162 billion by 2029. This would represent approximately 3.5% of GDP.

The Baltic and Scandinavian states are also splurging money to harden NATO’s eastern flank. They are especially energised because they share land borders with Russia.

On February 15, Ursula Von Der Leyen tweeted: “We need a surge in defence spending. Europe must bring more to the table. I will propose to activate the escape clause for defence investments. It will allow member states to substantially increase their defence expenditure, in a controlled and conditional way.”

There is a ’national escape clause’ in the bloc’s fiscal rules, which allows for an additional 1.5% of GDP to be spent on defence without budgetary constraints. Furthermore, the SAFE facility enables €150 billion in joint borrowing to finance cross-border projects and encourage European governments to purchase European weapons rather than ammunitions, drones, tanks, and missiles from the United States, Israel, or Japan.

The bond markets and investors are happy. Not so long ago, environmental, social, and governance (ESG) portfolios did not include defence. But now, because of hard security shocks, defence has been rebranded as a public good on par with environmental conservation.

Europeans, once again, are beginning to see war as an inconvenient necessity rather than an evil to be avoided.

War Is Good Business

Armin Papperger wrote on the company’s official X account: “Defence is now by far the most dynamic sector of German industry.”

Europe’s Aerospace and Defence Index has surged over the past year, reflecting investor enthusiasm for the sector. Fitch Ratings estimates that the eight largest defence companies are seeing at least a 15% increase in demand from 2024, and their combined cash flow is at a record-breaking €8 billion.

Germany’s Rheinmetall is acquiring US-based Loc Performance Products for $950 million. In France, Safran is buying the AI defence firm Preligens for around €220 million so that it can have better surveillance and data analysis capabilities.

Even startups like the Europe-based Helsing is raising €600 million in a Series D round for their state-of-the-art drone and electronic warfare systems, which are AI-operated.

Investment managers and law firms are jubilant as SAFE brings cheap credit to the European military-industrial complex, with experts expecting increased funding for missiles, armoured vehicles, and aircraft. Resources will also be allocated to neotechnologies, such as quantum secure communication, space-based surveillance, and autonomy.

This trend is projected to drive countless cross-border mergers and joint ventures well into the 2030s.

Too Slow To Make Bombs

Europe is throwing money at the problem, hoping to be prepared for an inevitable showdown with Russia. But money can’t make missiles, shells, and drones by itself. European factories are ramping up production, but there are bottlenecks and serious limitations to output capacity.

Economists at BNP Paribas believe that the bloc can transform its underutilised industrial capacity, which was once used for automotive and adjacent sectors, for defence production. The defence output would be raised by 0.5 percentage points to annual GDP growth in the mid-2020s. That growth is not just going to come from weapons, but also from metals, electronics, and machinery required to make them.

Additionally, the SAFE initiative, which demands procurement from within Europe, and investor enthusiasm might revitalise factories that were once closed for defence manufacturing.

The European Defence Fund has grand plans, but full-scale production won’t start until early 2030, even though Ukraine is running out of ammunition and drones at an unprecedented rate.

Europe is trying to buy off-the-shelf systems while setting up its own, while also scaling up its existing lines.

The Side Effects Of Defence Spending

There are conflicting opinions from economists on how increased defence spending will affect the economy.

Filippo Taddei, senior European economist at Goldman Sachs, told Reuters that extra defence spending will support European growth, in particular, support European industry at a time when they are particularly struggling.

Carsten Brzeski, ING’s global macro head, said: ’increased defence expenditure results in a negative multiplier effect on growth’ in the short term.

Klaas Knot, head of the Dutch central bank, said, “A temporary fiscal exemption for higher defence spending is justifiable, but warned that public debt in the EU remained excessively high.”

If you focus too much on war, you risk deprioritising other sectors (essential sectors such as education and healthcare). There is also the risk of inflation and higher interest rates.

Europe is infamous for its expensive welfare system and green transition programmes. If they pile up military outlays on top of that, the continent could see a backlash from voters who struggle to make ends meet.

There is also a lot of debate about the inequality within the bloc. Bruegel and other think tanks analysed ’Rearm Europe’, and believe that the move would largely benefit national governments instead of the EU as a whole. For example, rich nations like Germany and the Netherlands will borrow cheaply and aggressively invest in weapons manufacturing, while Eastern and Southern Europe will find themselves in unsustainable debts, or incapable of militarising at a pace on par with their wealthy counterparts.

Europe’s political and cultural rebranding of making defence an ESG-compatible investment is still on the debate floor.

Institutional investors are arguing that supplying democracies with weapons to defend against tyranny is ethical and consistent with the EU’s vision.

But, many are afraid of dual-use technologies that will later be exported to poor countries with questionable human rights records. There is already a lot of uproar towards sending weapons to Saudi Arabia and Israel.

The ethical complexity of the issue is likely to affect industrial growth, even though the weapons manufacturing sector is seeing a boom.

An End To Reliance On External Security Umbrellas

Europe is beginning to understand that pacifism and reliance on external security umbrellas might not cut it. True safety and security come from self-reliance. The wars in Ukraine and Russia are stark reminders of a return to armament.

Despite throwing money at the problem and having the potential to have outstanding armies by the end of the decade, there are still several challenges that governments must navigate.

For starters, there are the industrial bottlenecks. Not all the money in the world can create missiles, artillery, and drones instantly. There are supply chain problems and production limits that are to be overcome gradually.

There is also the economic inequality and in-bloc politics that might arise because of a re-armed Europe, as Eastern and Southern states might find themselves drowning in debt, while nations like Germany and the Netherlands might make a profit through the rapid militarisation race.

Europe has long positioned itself as the most ethical society on earth. Making defence an ESG-compatible public good is highly controversial in European societies, and many see it as a means to pour government funds into the military-industrial complex.

Regardless, money is being poured into the military establishment, factories are reopening, and war looms on the horizon.

The post As threat of war looms, Europe hikes spending on military and defence equipment appeared first on International Finance.

Bitcoin (BTC) saw a brutal sell-off in early 2026 as it plunged from a peak of $126,000 to below $63,000. This has led people to try deciphering the market realities, as the crash exposed the cracks in the mythology of Bitcoin as an ever-booming asset.

Most analysts believe it was a new financial era. The digital asset broke the six-figure threshold in late 2024, and by early 2025, it was seen as the most coveted asset in this new financial landscape. The spot exchange-traded funds (ETFs) brought Wall Street money into the crypto market, and the Trump administration, which was initially hostile to cryptocurrencies, became incredibly friendly.

Of course, there was also the halving cycle. Bitcoin’s four-yearly supply shock was as punctual as always. By October 2025, the price touched $126,000, and the faithful acolytes and crypto billionaires were already mapping $200,000 and beyond.

Then the bottom fell out. Prices have been slashed in half from their October peak, with the price plunging way below the $63,000 mark in February 2026 for a staggering fall of around 50% in just four months. This crash has caused significant panic in the market as billions of dollars disappeared over a handful of sessions, and many leveraged traders were flushed out. Furthermore, the Spot ETF, which was intended to legitimise the cryptocurrency as a stable asset, instead forced sellers to mechanically dump coins in a market that was already collapsing.

Yes, it was a bloody season, even by crypto’s permissive standards, but this article is not about how bad it was, but what it reveals. Is crypto the new digital gold, or is it just a speculative asset with institutional backing?

Modern crypto crash

Bitcoin has come a long way from being one of the riskiest assets in the world. It has slowly garnered a reputation as something that will keep increasing in value.

To understand this sell-off and why it hit so hard, we need to look at how the market was built over the last two years and examine the structures that drove the last rally and its inevitable collapse.

Firstly, let’s examine leverage. The crypto derivatives market is a paradise for aggressive traders, and the latest cycle drew hordes of them. When the digital currency eroded from its $80,000 to $90,000 range in early February, the markets saw almost $279 million in leveraged positions liquidated within a single day. Almost $170 million of that was concentrated in long positions.

Just a few days later, within a single hour, $80 million in liquidations were produced, and $48 million of it was Bitcoin alone.

While the data is not record-breaking or particularly alarming in isolation, it remains significant due to the feedback loops and self-fulfilling prophecies it creates.

Academic research specifically examining Bitcoin futures markets at BitMEX revealed that daily forced liquidations average approximately 3.5% of open interest for long positions, largely because many traders utilise effective leverage levels of 60x or more. In an environment like that, even a moderate price decline leads to those margin calls. Exchanges then dump collateral to cover those calls, and the prices dwindle further, liquidating more positions. This cascade is fast, mechanical, and transforms something that is otherwise manageable into a rout.

But we can’t blame everything on leverage. It was just an amplifier and not what started this domino effect. The foundational reasons for this crash were a structural shift in the behaviour of a new and yet consequential set of players. Namely, the ETF complex.

New buyers become sellers

Experts say that the US spot Bitcoin ETF launch was a watershed moment. It allowed retail and institutional investors to access the digital currency through a regulated, familiar vehicle without managing balances or private keys for the first time.

Within the first two trading days of 2026, $1.2 billion in net inflows were recorded on US ETFs. It is an extraordinary pace, which reassured investors that the historic run of 2024 and 2025 probably might not end anytime soon.

Then the rhythm broke. The shockwaves emerged with ETF flows flipping negative by January 6. Research by Binance reported that, in 2026, demand had turned into a net negative, with year-to-date flows of roughly minus 4,595 BTC. This meant that the funds, on balance, were being sold into the market rather than bought.

A separate analysis claimed US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $4.5 billion in net outflows in 2026, which was the longest sustained outflow streak since early 2025.

It’s different this time around because in previous cycles, after every halving, retail enthusiasm fades, and the tourist capital is usually invested in offshore derivatives or speculative altcoins. This is referred to as altseason.

Most traders who make big money during the sell-off re-divert that wealth into up-and-coming coins. But this season, there was no altseason rally. The cryptocurrency kept booming indefinitely. There was even talk that an altcoin season might not happen again.

ETFs have changed the equation. When investors redeem ETF shares, the fund must sell underlying altcoins to meet these demands. It is programmed that way and is non-discretionary. It happens in large blocks and hits a market which, despite its growth, has relatively thin spot liquidity compared to traditional assets.

The ETF paradox is visible. The institutionalisation of BTC was supposed to stabilise the asset and broaden the ownership base. Instead, it created a new system where retail fear can rapidly and efficiently transmit into largescale spot selling. This legitimisation was celebrated by bulls, yet that same mechanism has handed a button for self-annihilation to the market.

The macro context

And to top it all off, the macroeconomy couldn’t be more hostile to Bitcoin. The wars in Europe, Israel and possible geopolitical crises in Taiwan and Iran, along with the tariff wars, have killed the appetite of central banks around the world. Markets have been tightening and de-risking globally.

The same fears that cause volatility in traditional markets are more profound now. Gold has surged above $5,500 per ounce, serving as a safe haven for assets as it has for thousands of years. Meanwhile, the digital asset (which was supposed to be a storehouse of wealth and was dubbed the ‘digital gold’) has fallen roughly 20% year-todate as of early February. It is a development that is impossible to miss.

The whole idea of the blockchain asset was ‘gold but better’ because someone could steal your gold from your house, banks might collapse, and gold is harder to transport from one country to another. It also had all the good properties of gold in the sense that no one could take it from you. It was in a hidden, encrypted wallet that the government had no access to, and the prices always kept booming.

It was considered a reliable and safe asset, but the global crisis has proven that the digital currency might not be as reliable an asset as people thought it was, and is definitely not a dependable replacement for gold.

The policies that have been baked in place by governments around the world are not conducive either. Since COVID-19, near-zero rates, and quantitative easing, banks have made a coordinated retreat from their usual yet extraordinary monetary accommodation.

The US Federal Reserve drained $2.8 trillion from its balance sheet between the pandemic peak and late 2025, only taking a slight U-turn in December. The European Central Bank was no different and shed $3 trillion since mid-2022. Even the Bank of Japan (which was a perennial holdout historically) has embraced inflation and is shrinking its own balance sheets.

It’s not all doom and gloom. Some rate cuts are set to return in 2026. However, there has been a generational shift. Real yields are positive, and even cash offers dependable returns. The dollar is firm despite day-to-day volatility. Bitcoin, which had thrived in the era of free money, unprofitable growth companies, and speculative tech, is a natural casualty of this change in philosophy.

The cryptocurrency is correlated with the Nasdaq and other high-beta risk assets (assets with high volatility relative to the market). It is telling of what the asset has evolved into, which is a macro trading instrument.

It only rallies when there is abundant liquidity and a great appetite for risk, and is dumped the moment traders have cold feet.

The digital gold question

Now let’s get to the heart of the matter. In a world of uncertainty, war, fatigue, plague, and zero-sum games, gold seems like the most reliable asset to hold on to. Everyone wants it, and no culture would deny it.

The digital gold thesis is underpinned by two important claims, the first being that Bitcoin acts as a store of value that builds and retains purchasing power across full cycles despite its inherent volatility. And the second claim suggests that during a crisis, the cryptocurrency behaves like gold, and serves as an effective hedge against both monetary debasement and geopolitical uncertainty.

“Bitcoin is sensitive to liquidity. In phases when capital becomes cautious, BTC often behaves not like a protective shield, but like a real risk asset,” according to the views of analysts on the website of Aequifin, a Germany-based fintech platform for litigation funding.

There are no arguments about the first claim. The digital asset has proven its resilience across years, seeing highs and lows but coming back up every halving cycle. Previously, it had lost 70% to 80% of its value, yet it has soared to new heights every time. Long-term holders have been rewarded in a way that no other asset has rewarded its holders.

Research on post-halving dynamics has confirmed that speculative cycle and supply shock patterns are broadly intact.

It is when it comes to the second claim (the idea of the cryptocurrency as a go-to asset during a crisis) that things get murky.

Research across multiple methodologies, including VAR models, GARCH analysis, and multi-factor frameworks, has concluded that BTC cannot function as a safe haven akin to gold. Studies examining correlations between the digital currency, gold, oil, and equities indicate that Bitcoin is the second riskiest asset in the sample, and significantly more volatile than gold, making it more comparable to crude oil or leveraged growth stocks than to defensive instruments.

Furthermore, Quantile VAR spillover methods reveal that under normal and bullish conditions, BTC acts as a net transmitter of risk to other assets, while in times of crisis, it amplifies shocks rather than absorbing them, such as gold and treasuries.

The crash of 2026 exposes an uncomfortable reality. The conditions that ought to have been quite attractive, like geopolitical risk, currency uncertainty, and distrust of institutional finance, have not made it soar to new heights. Instead, there has been a 50% depreciation. Gold, however, has reached new heights. It’s not that Bitcoin didn’t rally; it crashed.

Nations that bet big

No one has bet bigger on the digital currency than El Salvador and the Central African Republic. Two nations, continents apart, that granted the blockchain asset full legal tender status. Both nations, as a consequence, have struggled considerably.

El Salvador decided to gamble in September 2021, presenting itself as a visionary. It sounded like a small, dollarised economy was going to leapfrog traditional financial infrastructure to reduce remittance costs and attract crypto- tourists, much like Dubai.

It was going to be a financial laboratory, but the experiment went awry. Research has found that BTC was only used for 1.9% of transactions in the first year. A lot of Salvadorans downloaded the government’s Chivo wallet to collect a one-time $30 incentive, but didn’t open it again.

There were many problems, including technical friction, price volatility, and patchy internet access; consequently, many ordinary citizens saw it as absolutely impractical. However, tourism got a boost, with a rise of 22% in 2024. The digital asset was one of the primary attractions for international visitors, but the macro picture was collapsing. The IMF flagged the legal tender arrangement, citing risks to financial stability, consumer risk, and fiscal integrity.

“El Salvador’s Bitcoin experiment has failed. Public distrust, low adoption, technological problems, and volatility are leading to a rollback of the legal tender policy in 2025,” tweeted Ricardo V. Lago, an independent commentator on Latin American economics, on X in November 2025.

In early 2025, El Salvador sought a $1.4 billion loan from the IMF. One of the conditions laid down by the IMF for loan eligibility was the demotion of Bitcoin and the revocation of its legal tender status. El Salvador received the loan and revoked the legal tender status of the crypto asset. Now, merchants aren’t required to accept the digital currency. The government still has its digital currency holdings, but the experiment has failed. El Salvador is now just another crypto-friendly jurisdiction, not a Bitcoin economy.

The Central African Republic had an even worse crypto journey. CAR adopted the digital asset as legal tender in April 2022, despite having a population where only 11%-14% have internet access.

The government launched a partially Bitcoin-backed national cryptocurrency called Sango Coin, and promised foreign investors citizenship, land rights, and access to natural resources in exchange for token purchases. However, the country’s constitutional court pushed back against selling citizenship via crypto, calling it unconstitutional.

Sango Coin made less than €2 million, which is far short of its target, and collapsed. Researchers who investigated the experiment described the programme as opaque, poorly designed, and constructed for the benefit of speculators and politically connected intermediaries rather than ordinary CAR citizens.

Global Initiative Against Transnational Organised Crime (GI-TOC) stated in its report that the opaque nature of the schemes benefited a small circle of insiders and transnational criminal organisations looking for ways to launder money.

“The CAR regime is effectively trading away the country’s sovereignty at the expense of the wider population,” states the report from the Switzerland-based network of some 600 experts tracking international organised crime.

Both these countries were brave, considering that their economies are on the weaker end of the spectrum. Their experiment might have paid dividends if they had sold the assets during historic highs, but these are nations, and not speculating investors or ‘crypto bros’.

For El Salvador, Bitcoin’s volatility created fiscal and reputational risks that brought about a mild U-turn in policy. In CAR, it added more tension and instability to an already fragile economy.

Liquidity shock or structural red flag?

This crash can be seen in two ways, with the simple reading being that it represents the usual cyclical fluctuations of a speculative asset. Bitcoin has encountered this situation many times before, such as the 2018 crash, where prices fell below 80% and caused significant panic, as well as the 2022 crash, which was almost as severe. The pattern remains consistent every time.

“BTC’s well-known four-year cycle may no longer define its long-term behaviour,” Cathie Wood, CEO of ARK Invest, stated in a Fox Business interview in December 2025. Yet, she acknowledged past cycles featured ‘sharp crashes, often 75% to 90%’, now steadied by institutions.

There is euphoria followed by leverage, a macro or idiosyncratic shock, a cascade of forced selling, capitulation, and an eventual recovery to new heights. From this perspective, the recent violent crash is considered routine, and long-term holders who are habituated to these cycles will likely continue to hold while awaiting new horizons.

The second way to look at it is through the structural lens. What has changed since 2018 and 2022?

The major change is that there are new players in the market. First, ETFs now represent a major share of institutional BTC exposure. Additionally, derivative markets are deeper and more interconnected, and leverage in the system is larger in absolute dollar terms, even if the percentage of open interest remains similar.

The digital asset’s price is now heavily conditioned by the same liquidity plumbing that governs equity markets, including ETF flows, repo conditions, and prime brokerage leverage.

It is no longer bound to slow-moving fundamentals like on-chain adoption or long-term holder accumulation. If you look at it like that, the decentralised financial asset is more like a leveraged Nasdaq constituent than a traditional monetary asset that is separate from the financial system. This may not be permanent. Markets can deepen, ownership will broaden, and volatility could decline, which may shift all these correlations in the future. But, as of now, empirically, we understand that BTC isn’t gold.

So the practical takeaway for investors is that the cryptocurrency isn’t a safe haven or a hedge, but a high-beta, liquidity-sensitive position. It’s more like a tech asset than a gold bar.

It still might boom and reach new all-time highs, but it isn’t an asset that’s stable enough to bet on when the world around you is burning down.

For governments and policymakers, the digital currency narrative might be appealing, but lessons from CAR and El Salvador are humbling. The volatility of BTC is treated as a feature of its immaturity, but it is not dependable enough for long-term public policy. Small economies with very limited fiscal space to operate cannot absorb a 50% drawdown. When the banks come knocking, arithmetic prevails over ideology.

It is not to say the digital currency isn’t appealing. It still is, just as it was 10 years ago. There are several factors that remain remarkable, including its supply constraint, an ongoing adoption curve, and a consistent history of full cycles.

But the 2026 crash has an important lesson to teach us. Cryptocurrency as an asset class has not matured like gold. We are, without a doubt, in an early and volatile chapter of the Bitcoin story.

The post Bitcoin crash shatters digital gold myth appeared first on International Finance.

And yet, up to three-quarters of companies are still using paper checks, for example, despite inefficiencies and increasing costs. While traditional document handling and processing might seem familiar and reliable, they are fast becoming outdated and potentially hazardous for companies and customers.

Digitalisation, of course, can be complex, and there is considerable planning and execution involved that can take months to complete. However, one key step finance companies (and those processing paper transactions en masse) should take immediately is to switch to digital signatures across all their documents.

Why digital signatures matter

Digital signatures have emerged as a natural successor to the well-worn paper-based standard. Through digital contract signing and payment authorisation, key transactions are easier to attach to certain parties, and it’s a quick route towards ensuring complete compliance with data retention and processing.

Learning how to sign documents online is, in the mid-2020s, a simple process that’s easy to train on and roll out across payment handling teams. We now have the systems and software to embed digital signatures into legacy tools and documents, too, meaning it can easily become part of existing processes at minimal cost.

Shockingly, reports show that 63% of companies surveyed by the AFP experienced some form of physical check fraud in 2024. If we’re to face transaction fraud head-on, we need to move more efficiently away from paper documents and legacy signage.

Key benefits

Beyond the obvious benefits of digitalisation in general, there are key benefits of digital signatures in financial transactions worth considering.

Digital signatures allow for faster processing and decision-making. The time it takes for physical checks and financial documents to get signed, authorised, and marked off can be cut down dramatically with automation and streamlined workflows. There are fewer checking steps, and reviews take seconds, not days.

They are more securely stored. Using a leading e-signature platform and data backup system means you can always be sure client signatures are encrypted and kept away from bad actors. Physical documents are always at the mercy of being lost and stolen, which can cause fraud and administrative headaches for all parties involved.

Another security benefit to digital signatures is that, with the right platform, they are easy to create and store so that they can’t be tampered with by third parties. Again, a digital paper trail can effectively verify signing intent and payment processing without confusion. Digital signatures also benefit compliance. In an age where companies face millions of dollars in potential fines for not complying with data protection laws, digital signatures can effectively prove that a company is doing enough to meet certain standards.

Ultimately, digital signatures remove the costs of physical document processing and the checks required along the way. Therefore, this form of digital streamlining frees up administrative hours that can be used more cost-effectively elsewhere.

The future of digital signatures

There are many ways that digital signatures will continue to evolve in finance in the years to come. For one, artificial intelligence can learn to recognise signatures from data to automatically approve payments, calculate money received and sent, and search for anomalies.

What’s more, companies may also use blockchain technology to create records and contracts with even more irrefutability. Digitally signed documents, established on the blockchain, will be even harder to counterfeit or dispute.

Up to 80% of US businesses are already using digital signatures in some shape or form, with that number likely to grow exponentially by the start of the next decade. However, now is the time to start taking steps towards making signage digital, regardless of what trends suggest.

The post Finance moves to digital signatures appeared first on International Finance.

Approximately 30,000 people have died in the fighting, and, when accounting for starvation and disease, the total number of casualties exceeds 400,000. After Omar al-Bashir was overthrown in a coup in 2019 by the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), some believed this could mark a new beginning for the nation. However, the formerly allied factions went back on their promises and began battling for power instead of working to restore civilian rule. This situation serves as a stark reminder of what can happen when political discourse breaks down, and a nation becomes fractured due to political and economic greed.

What the numbers really show

The IMF’s April 2025 World Economic Outlook places Sudan’s consumer price inflation at 100% for 2025 on average, a projection that reflects the scale and persistence of price pressures.

Complementing that, the IMF country page for Sudan shows consumer prices rising at triple digits, with real GDP projected to contract slightly in 2025, highlighting a stagflationary environment, which is a rare combination of high inflation, slow economic growth, and elevated unemployment, a squeeze that is both deep and sustained.

World Bank monitoring confirms continued macro fragility, with the May 2025 “Sudan Economic Update” describing entrenched supply constraints, administrative dislocation, and conflict-driven disruptions that keep inflation elevated and unstable.

A World Bank Macro Poverty Outlook note for Sudan indicates inflation decelerated to 78.4% year over year by July 2025, which is a notable moderation that still leaves households struggling as broad money growth, foreign exchange scarcity, and a persistent parallel premium feed through to prices.

When factories are looted, the farms burned, the roads severed, and banks shuttered or relocated under duress, price signals stop disciplining markets and start reflecting scarcity, fear, and speculation.

What fuels inflation?

How can anyone stabilise prices when the country is being torn apart by a civil war that began in April 2023 and has displaced millions, severed supply chains, and turned food, fuel, and cash into instruments of leverage?

United Nations updates since early 2025 have called Sudan the most devastating humanitarian and displacement crisis in the world.

The World Bank’s Sudan overview makes the connection explicit, describing how conflict has produced wide-ranging economic and social damage that constrains production, distorts logistics, and crushes livelihoods, which elevate price pressures and entrench volatility.

Moreover, standard economic analysis often misses the “shadow economy” of resource theft. In Sudan, this is not a small detail. It is the primary engine of the conflict. Official reports state that Sudan produced 64 tonnes of gold in 2024. This record amount should have injected billions into the banking system. It did not.

The reason is simple. Data indicates that between 50% and 80% of this gold is smuggled out of the country. Economic analysts estimate this results in a loss of up to $7 billion in annual revenue. This massive sum bypasses the government entirely. Instead of backing the currency, the wealth flows directly to armed factions like the RSF, who control key mines in Darfur.

Investigations reveal that over 90% of this gold eventually lands in the United Arab Emirates. The proceeds then return to Sudan in the form of weapons rather than food or medicine. This creates a self-sustaining “Gold-for-Guns” loop. The inflation crisis will never end while the nation’s most valuable asset is used to purchase the very bullets destroying it.

Currency collapse and the price spiral

Currencies are stories about credibility, and Sudan’s story has been a slow-motion implosion that turned precipitous as the war intensified.

Radio Dabanga reported that the US dollar surpassed 2,100 Sudanese pounds on the parallel market by July 2024. This violent depreciation quickly translated to increased prices for imported goods and basic necessities linked to import cost structures.

Further reporting captured the widening spread between official and parallel rates, with banks quoting markedly below street prices as the market premium crystallised into a daily tax on transacting outside privileged channels.

The World Bank’s 2025 update documents an official rate around 2,019 pounds per US dollar by March against a parallel rate near 2,679, quantifying an approximate 21% premium that distorts price discovery, encourages hoarding, and penalises the poorest who cannot arbitrage.

By June 2025, Xinhua described a further slide with the dollar trading at 2,760 on the parallel market and the official rate at 2,100, which is an exchange rate anatomy that maps directly onto continued price instability.

None of this is abstract because every currency gap creates space for speculation, counterfeiting, and rent extraction that show up as empty wallets and thinner meals for ordinary households.

Sudan executed a dramatic exchange rate adjustment in February 2021, moving the official rate from 55 to 375 pounds per dollar as part of a push to unify rates and restore competitiveness, a necessary step that proved insufficient in the face of political upheaval and then all-out conflict.

Any talk of new exchange rate reforms without parallel moves on security, revenue, and banking resilience will founder on the same rocks because credibility is earned through results that people can see on shelves and in markets.

That is why the IMF’s WEO snapshots matter less as forecasts to memorise and more as calls to restore the basic preconditions for price stability, starting with security, access, and institutional capacity.

Human cost of inflation

The numbers tell a story of collapse, but behind them are people, millions of them. According to UN assessments in 2025, tens of millions of Sudanese now depend on aid just to survive. Entire families are on the move, fleeing violence and hunger, while basic services such as water, health, and electricity fall around them.

The World Bank says poverty is surging and the economy has shrunk again, year after year. Latest data suggests that 26 million (around half the population) are starving, and the nation has more people living in famine than the rest of the world combined. There is also a 40% drop in income, and food inflation has tripled. People have no money for food, medicine, or fuel.

Even if inflation slows a little by mid-2025, it is still devastating. Prices are still high. And because food, housing, and transport make up most of what people spend on, it is the poorest who bear the most.

Humanitarian groups like ACAPS have been sounding the alarm for months. Food prices are spiking far above their multi-year averages. For example, the price of grains like Sorghum and millets in 2024 is 500% higher, which is six times, than in 2023. And it seems to be getting worse.

Markets are fractured. Imports are stuck. Traders are being taxed by armed groups at every checkpoint. Sudanese traders are being taxed or asked for protection money by both the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), as well as civil authorities and local militia. The cost of transit for goods itself is appalling. For a single truck to make a return trip in South Sudan, the cost of taxes and bribes to all competing parties is about a whopping $3,000. There are reports that supply trucks pass through almost 100 checkpoints controlled by rival factions on a one-way trip.

It is a human catastrophe that shows, in real time, what happens when war, misrule, and neglect destroy not only a country’s currency but its capacity to care for its people. The displacement map is also a price map because each wave of movement shifts demand toward fragile urban centres and import-dependent corridors where logistics premiums are already elevated.

Almost 13 million people have been displaced, and 8–10 million are internally displaced. It means that they have fled their homes but are still in Sudan. The rest have fled to Chad, Egypt, South Sudan, and Ethiopia. In that environment, the line between profiteering and survival blurs, and public authority’s absence invites every private tax imaginable, each one manifested in the final price paid in cash or in kind.

Inflation erodes purchasing power, social cohesion, trust in institutions, and the perceived fairness of the economic game, which, in turn, depresses participation and investment.

A broken banking system

If conflict is the match, policy failure is the kindling, and fiscal dominance is the wind that keeps the blaze alive.

Sudan’s central bank has not operated with full independence in years, subordinated to urgent fiscal needs that have encouraged money creation and administrative controls rather than credible anchors and transparent rule-making.

The World Bank’s country work points to disrupted cash replacement, mobile money curbs, and administrative interventions that respond to immediate pressures but often add frictions that widen parallel gaps and degrade confidence.

Banking infrastructure has been looted, relocated, or shuttered across key corridors, with more than half the system at times effectively disabled, which means intermediation is impaired and the transmission of policy signals is weak to non-existent.

When broad money grows 29% in six months, as the World Bank notes for early 2025, in a context of supply destruction and FX scarcity, the predictable result is persistent inflation, even if the monthly path wobbles with seasonal harvests and sporadic aid.

There is an irony here that should not be lost on anyone. The more the state leans on the banking system to absorb shocks it cannot price, the more fragile and politicised that system becomes, and the less able it is to perform the basic tasks of payments, savings, and credit without distortion.

There is no visible horizon for the conflict, and the Sudanese people are experiencing one of the worst economic crises of our times, comparable to the people of Palestine, Yemen, and Ukraine.

Humanitarian access must expand quickly as an inflation management tool that floods famine-threatened regions with food and health services, breaks speculative hoarding, and normalises logistics so that price expectations can reset.

Diplomatic leverage must prioritise a ceasefire that enables corridors and markets to function safely because every day of war deepens scarcity and every week of scarcity hardens inflation expectations.

The post Sudan’s war on survival appeared first on International Finance.

Succession is often treated as a technical exercise. Families are advised on companies, foundations, trusts, shareholder agreements, and life insurance. The documents are signed and there is a sense that the plan is “done”. The real vulnerabilities lie in human dynamics, unspoken expectations, and unresolved questions of what the family is actually trying to preserve.

Survival mode and the residue it leaves behind

Many first-generation founders built their wealth under constant pressure. Business demands invariably came first, so emotional conversations at home were easy to postpone.

That does not necessarily make anyone a poor parent, but it can leave residue on the dynamics. From that point, even well drafted structures can strain. Decisions that appear to be about strategy or valuation often carry older emotional weight. A disagreement over governance is also a dispute about recognition. A debate about liquidity is also a conversation about trust.

Patterns that repeat across generations

Parents can sometimes confuse their own unmet needs with their children’s needs. A child who wants responsibility may receive only protection. Another who needs space may feel held in place by a structure designed to “keep the family together”. Over time, frustration can turn into mistrust or a quiet determination to prove a point.

Consider the splitting of a restaurant bill. When ten friends split a bill evenly, some will have eaten less or ordered modestly. Many still pay their share, but a few quietly feel that the split was unfair. Repeated often enough, that feeling hardens into resentment. Family enterprises replicate this dynamic at scale. By the time a formal transition arrives, perceptions may have already hardened.

Tools matter, but they are not the starting point

From a technical and structural perspective, cross-border families have many tools. We’re talking of holding structures to align assets with jurisdictions, vehicles to ring-fence wealth, agreements that separate management from control, and life insurance to create liquidity where most wealth is locked into operating businesses or property.

None of these can compensate for the absence of alignment. A structure designed to preserve capital will not satisfy heirs who believe the real objective should be independence. A governance charter will not resolve a decade of unspoken resentment about who carried the load. A cross-border life insurance policy can ease a liquidity crunch, but it cannot tell a family how to measure fairness.

The question that keeps the boat moving

After years of underperformance, a British rowing team adopted a simple filter before every decision: “Does this make the boat go faster?”

If the answer was yes, they did it. If the answer was no, they did not. Families need their own version of that question, while understanding that the specific answer may differ, but agreeing on one shared objective changes the conversation.

Once that principle is explicit, the role of advisors and structures becomes clearer. It’s important to remember that governance is designed to serve a purpose, not to compensate for the lack of one. Liquidity planning supports a chosen definition of fairness instead of trying to replace it, and cross-border complexity becomes a problem of implementation rather than identity.

The post Succession breaks where silence lives appeared first on International Finance.

Green finance has become a toolkit for funding real assets that cut emissions, protect natural resources and harden economies against climate shocks, from solar parks and efficient factories to cleaner transport, water systems that waste less and infrastructure that withstands heat and floods.

Investors who once chased stories now demand numbers, asking how many megawatt hours will be saved, how many tonnes of carbon will be avoided and whether those claims will stand up to independent verification over time.

Green finance ties the use of proceeds or the performance of a borrower to quantifiable environmental outcomes that can be audited and priced, which is exactly what long-term capital wants in an era defined by risk, scrutiny and accountability.

For Oman, the alignment is straightforward, since the vision set by “Oman Vision 2040” calls for a more diversified economy built on innovation, skilled jobs and sustainability that preserves natural beauty while boosting global competitiveness and signalling seriousness to partners and markets.

The point is not to tick boxes for an external audience, it is to finance an economic transition that creates value locally, lowers costs of capital and strengthens the national balance sheet against volatility in a world already pricing climate risks.

Capital will not come because green is fashionable. It will come because projects can demonstrate clear benefits, present bankable documentation and deliver verified outcomes that de-risk investor decisions and justify better pricing and longer maturities.

The instruments are already proven, accessible and flexible enough to fit Omani priorities, which means the bottleneck is not novelty but execution with integrity. Green bonds and green loans direct money to labelled uses like solar generation, industrial retrofits or energy efficient desalination, where eligibility is clear, and the impacts can be tracked across the life of the asset.

Sustainability-linked loans and bonds go a step further by rewarding borrowers with lower coupons if they hit agreed performance targets, such as measurable reductions in energy use or increases in recycled water, which aligns incentives without restricting proceeds to a narrow list of assets.

Carbon markets can add a complementary revenue stream when projects produce verified emissions reductions, improving project economics and attracting international finance that wants both returns and impact.

When these tools are backed by honest data and credible reporting, the benefits compound, from access to new investor pools and longer duration money to a stronger national brand and more jobs across engineering, project finance, digital monitoring, maritime services, logistics and the circular economy that ties waste to opportunity.

Oman’s starting position is stronger than its critics concede, which is why urgency can coexist with confidence. Abundant solar and wind resources offer a comparative advantage for clean power and energy-intensive industries that want to decarbonise, while a strategic location and reliable institutions simplify supply chains and deal execution for investors who hate surprises more than anything else.

A growing base of industrial and logistics expertise means capability is not being built from zero, it is being upgraded for the next wave of investment in green hydrogen, power grids, storage and cleaner manufacturing, where scale, credibility and coordination determine winners.

Local banks are building the right teams and tools, while policymakers are giving explicit signals, with the Central Bank of Oman encouraging sustainable finance practices and transparent disclosures and capital market rules now enabling green and sustainability bonds and sukuk to be issued with confidence inside a clear framework.

Early movers matter in any market shift, and within banking, Sohar International has stepped out front by engaging clients, developing internal capacity and exploring climate-aligned lending so that more Omani projects qualify for green finance on terms that are fair, competitive and repeatable. This is how markets are built, by combining policy clarity with private capability and project-level data that turns goals into signed term sheets.

Proof beats promises

Green finance rewards clarity, and in Oman, clarity is beginning to deliver funding for real economy use cases, not just glossy brochures. In shipping and logistics, an Omani company secured a green loan from international lenders by presenting an energy efficiency business case grounded in data with a credible plan to cut fuel use and emissions that third parties could verify, which is the difference between a marketing deck and a financing package.

On rooftops and in small businesses, local retail programmes for solar and efficiency have already helped households and SMEs (small and medium businesses) lower bills, a reminder that the energy transition is not only about giga projects but about the cumulative effect of thousands of small decisions supported by accessible finance.

In heavy industry and energy, a coordinated push around green hydrogen has started to attract global developers who bring capital and technology, which is precisely the blend needed to derisk first movers and get steel in the ground.

The through line in each example is simple and repeatable, because clarity plus data equals money, and lenders will improve pricing and extend maturities when they can quantify savings or avoided emissions and see that those numbers have been independently checked.

This is how to turn climate objectives into competitive financing: by answering the two questions lenders always ask, how will this project perform under stress, and who will verify that it is doing what it claims as conditions change. When the answers are precise, prices improve, and when the answers are weak or vague, projects stall and costs rise, which is why internal discipline inside firms will be as important as external signalling by regulators.

Preparedness at the enterprise level is the fastest way to convert interest into funding, because the cheapest loan is the one that does not get delayed by missing documents and shifting targets. Start with a simple sustainability plan that explains the project, defines the expected environmental benefits and sets out how results will be measured, because lenders finance what they can underwrite, and underwriters need a plan they can file and revisit.

Build a baseline for emissions that covers Scope 1 and Scope 2 and the most material parts of Scope 3 where relevant, because credibility flows from showing where you stand before you promise how far you will go.

Choose the right instrument for the job. A green loan or bond, when the use of proceeds is clearly green and a sustainability-linked structure, when the goal is to improve performance over time across a broader corporate platform. Collect facts early, from feasibility studies and permits to signed contracts and a one-page summary that states impact per rial invested, because the summary focuses attention and the appendices carry the evidence.

Secure an external review to build trust and engage the bank at the start by asking what documentation, KPIs (key performance indicators) and reports it needs so that both sides are aligned on definitions, measurement and timing with no surprises later. This is about predictability, and predictable borrowers get better terms, more options and faster credit approvals from lenders trained to reward process discipline.

The system moves faster when everyone shares the same language and templates, which is why a “Green Finance Starter Programme” would pay for itself in velocity and volume. Many Omani SMEs want to participate but are unsure where to begin, so a national programme delivered through chambers and industry groups can teach teams to calculate a basic emissions baseline, select the right financing tool, prepare a short sustainability report and understand what assurance really means in practice.

Training must also target bankers, credit officers and FDI professionals, because deals close when borrowers and lenders align on eligibility, KPIs, verification and reporting, and that alignment comes from repeated conversations across a shared technical vocabulary.

Here, regulators can lean in with light but catalytic touch, as the Central Bank and investment authorities can back standard templates, share anonymised examples and celebrate early successes to create demonstration effects that pull others into the pipeline.

The outcome is not bureaucracy, it is speed, because standardisation reduces ambiguity, reduces legal opinions and reduces time to funds disbursement for projects that meet the criteria. The more predictable the process, the lower the risk premium investors will demand, which is how a policy choice about templates becomes a macro lever for lowering national financing costs.

Sovereign first, global ready

The fastest way to lose credibility is to appear to chase external agendas, which is why Omani green finance is rooted in national priorities and financial independence that serve domestic objectives first.

The goal is neither to mimic another country’s taxonomy nor to accept conditionality that undermines sovereignty. The goal is to channel capital to projects that strengthen the economic base, build industrial competitiveness and enhance environmental resilience under rules set and enforced at home.

Policy leadership by the Central Bank of Oman, the Capital Market Authority and the Ministry of Finance provides the backbone for this approach, ensuring that all green financing instruments are governed by clear disclosure and accountability standards that protect national interests while welcoming credible partners.

That is how to be globally ready without being globally dependent, by building a system that matches international best practice where it adds value while tailoring thresholds, definitions and reporting to Omani realities and sectoral priorities.

Sovereignty is not a slogan in this context. It is a series of design choices that keep governance, verification and enforcement aligned with national strategy so that the shift to sustainability remains strategic and durable, not transient and reactive. Markets can smell incoherence, and when frameworks wobble, capital retreats, which is why a sovereign-led, transparent and practical architecture is a competitive advantage in a crowded field of issuers and borrowers.

A credible framework requires practical rules that are stable enough for companies and banks to plan around, because nothing kills a pipeline faster than moving goalposts. It also requires capability, which comes from short, targeted training that equips lenders and borrowers to measure and verify impact with confidence, so that KPIs are not just acronyms on a slide but metrics embedded in operations and covenants.

Finally, it requires a visible pipeline of priority projects, from renewables and storage to industrial efficiency, low carbon logistics and green hydrogen, because capital prefers to shop from a shelf where the products are labelled, documented and ready for due diligence. Publish the shelf and refresh it, then watch how swiftly roadshows turn into mandates when investors see a line of creditworthy projects under a consistent policy umbrella.

Sovereign support should be targeted, not distorting, which is why a sustainable finance framework or a credit enhancement facility for early projects can attract private capital without crowding it out, especially in the first wave, where demonstration effects matter more than marginal costs.

The payoff is direct and measurable: lower financing costs, more international investment, stronger Omani enterprises and a stream of sustainable, high-quality jobs that anchor communities and expand the tax base.

Evidence from within Oman already shows the logic working in microcosm, which should embolden a scale-up in the next budget cycle. The shipping example proves that when a borrower presents a credible plan with independently checkable metrics, international lenders will line up to price efficiency gains and share the upside in tighter spreads or better tenors.

The household and SME programmes for rooftop solar and efficiency show that retail finance can be green, practical and popular when lower bills are visible within months, and repayment structures are simple, which builds a culture of demand that supports larger grid and storage investments.

The early momentum in green hydrogen shows how policy focus can draw global developers with both capital and technology, and it underlines the need to connect upstream ambitions to midstream infrastructure and downstream offtake with contracts that allocate risk fairly across the chain.

Stitch these strands together inside a coherent disclosure and assurance regime, and Oman will not have to persuade the market with slogans. It will persuade the market with term sheets and performance reports that speak for themselves.

Playbook for projects

Every firm that wants to tap green finance in Oman can follow a playbook that is short, disciplined and designed to survive sceptical due diligence, because scepticism is the default stance of any serious lender. First, define the project and its environmental logic in plain terms, then state the KPIs that will prove success and the methods for measuring them over time, which stops debates about purpose from consuming meetings that should be about terms and timelines.

Following these, establish a baseline for emissions that covers direct and indirect energy and the most material value chain components, because a baseline makes future claims legible and comparable across reporting periods and market cycles. Third, match the instrument to the reality, using green loans or bonds for defined green uses of proceeds and sustainability-linked structures when the value lies in performance improvement against credible targets rather than in a single pool of assets.

Fourth, pull together feasibility studies, permits and contracts, then condense the numbers into a one-page summary of impact per rial invested that lets decision makers grasp the economics and the environmental case at a glance without flipping through appendices in a marathon session.

Fifth, seek an external review early to build trust and surface any weaknesses before they are handed to a lender, which prevents avoidable delays and demonstrates professionalism to counterparties who value preparedness.

Finally, sit with the bank on day one and ask for its documentation, KPI and reporting expectations, then build your data room to that specification so there are no last-minute scrambles that raise doubts about execution capacity. This sequence is not glamorous, but it wins mandates because it respects how credit committees think and how risk is priced in competitive markets that reward certainty.

For SMEs, the path can be made even clearer through a national starter programme that demystifies the basics and lowers the cost of entry into green finance, which is where leverage per rial spent on training is highest. A programme delivered with chambers and industry groups can teach teams to calculate a basic baseline, choose a financing instrument, draft a short sustainability report and understand assurance, so that first-time borrowers arrive at banks with documents that are good enough to be taken seriously.

Training should be reciprocal, with bankers, credit officers and FDI professionals learning the same technical language so that meetings become exercises in alignment rather than translation, a shift that accelerates closings and reduces leakage in the pipeline.

Regulators can help by standardising templates, sharing anonymised case studies and publicly celebrating early deals that went right, which normalises the process and signals to the market that this is not a fad but a policy-backed shift with institutional energy behind it.

The net effect is compounding velocity, because the second wave of deals is always easier when the first wave created precedents that lawyers and lenders can reference without reinventing every clause.

The road to leadership

The reasons to act now are practical, not rhetorical, because global capital is already reweighting toward clean assets and credible frameworks, and the penalty for hesitation is opportunity lost to neighbours who move faster and offer better documentation.

Oman has the resources, the institutions and the policy direction to compete for that capital at scale, but the deciding factor will be the boring excellence of documents, baselines, KPIs and third-party checks that earn trust across borders and credit cycles.

Even the best solar resource does not finance itself. It needs a borrower who can prove savings, a regulator who can guarantee standards and a lender who can price risk with confidence, which is why the blocking and tackling described above will matter more than slogans on conference stages.

The good news is that the building blocks exist, from local banks assembling green finance capabilities to authorities enabling green and sustainability bonds and sukuk and early projects showing that money follows numbers when the numbers are honest.

The next chapter will be written by teams that execute the playbook and by policymakers who protect national interests while opening the door to credible partners under rules that elevate trust over hype, process over improvisation and performance over promises. If that discipline holds, Oman can turn vision into velocity and make green finance not just a headline, but a competitive advantage that compounds across a generation.

The post Oman turns vision into green power appeared first on International Finance.

In 2024, Meta Platforms reported revenue of $164.50 billion. As of September 30, 2025, the social media giant’s revenue was approximately $189.46 billion. It’s a titan of industry that shareholders love, and that loves its shareholders. But the excessive love of shareholders is the root of all corporate sin.

Despite its skyrocketing revenue and incredible technological prowess, Meta doesn’t think it should regulate its market or protect its customers from fraud and harm. The digital advertising ecosystem, once heralded as a democratisation of commercial reach, has metastasised into a complex marketplace where the distinctions between legitimate commerce and predatory fraud are increasingly obscured by algorithmic opacity.

Internal projections for the fiscal year 2024 indicate that advertisements promoting scams, illegal goods, and prohibited content generated approximately $16 billion, representing roughly 10% of the company’s total annual revenue. This revenue is safeguarded by a penalty bid pricing mechanism that monetises high-risk advertisers rather than removing them, a policy framework that sets enforcement thresholds at a staggering 95% certainty level and a corporate governance structure that explicitly caps revenue losses from safety enforcement at a fraction of the profits generated by the fraud.

So, what does this mean? Meta will even let bad actors sell horse dung or magic remedies if they are willing to pay a premium for their risky endeavour. While the company has long faced scrutiny regarding data privacy and political influence, investigations surfacing in late 2024 and throughout 2025 have illuminated a far more tangible structural crisis: the institutionalisation of revenue derived from fraudulent advertising.

What’s really happening?

In November 2025, a Reuters investigation, corroborated by a cache of internal documents spanning 2021 to 2025, revealed a stark internal projection. Meta anticipated $16 billion in revenue for 2024, specifically from ads for scams and banned goods. To contextualise this figure, $16 billion exceeds the annual revenue of major global entities such as Spotify or eBay (Fortune 500 companies). It is a sum that materially impacts the company’s earnings per share and, consequently, its stock valuation.

This revenue stream is categorised internally under various euphemisms, including “violating revenue” or segments associated with higher legal risk. The existence of such specific forecasting line items indicates that this revenue is not accidental. Financial modelling that explicitly accounts for illicit revenue suggests a fiduciary dependency; removing this revenue stream would require a voluntary correction of the company’s top line by nearly 10%, a move that would likely trigger a shareholder revolt in an environment where growth in legitimate user acquisition has plateaued.

To put things into context, Meta shows 15 billion scam ads a day. A lesser entity would be penalised and shut down in most countries, but the mighty titan of the digital industry has thus far been immune to its amoral position on the safety of its consumers. Upper management at Meta does not care if an online casino, a pump-and-dump investment scheme, fake websites, or purveyors of illegal drugs flood their platform with misleading ads, as long as their pockets are full.

After the Reuters investigation and some high-profile cases against it globally, most notably the Calise vs Meta lawsuit and the Brazil AGU lawsuit, the company is trying its best at crisis management.

Calise vs Meta is a class-action lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit pursuing claims of unjust enrichment, arguing that Meta actively solicited and profited from third-party fraud and thus should disgorge the revenue. The Brazilian Attorney General’s Office has also filed suit to recover revenue from 1,770 specific fraudulent ads that used government symbols to scam citizens, demanding that the funds be deposited into a rights defence fund. Something similar is happening in the United Kingdom as well. Regulators in the European country found that Meta platforms were involved in 54% of all authorised push payment scams (where users are tricked into sending money).

The Instagram parent company says only 10% of its revenue came from scams in 2024 and aims to cut it to 7.3% in 2025 and 5.8% by 2027. The claim seems absurd. They have the tools to stop it now, but choose to roll it out slowly to protect their profits and please shareholders.

Of the $16 billion ad revenue they received from bad actors, $7 billion was from higher-risk parties (possibly extremely dubious or problematic). It is ironic because Meta’s own system files it as such. The most critical insight from the internal disclosures is the calculated decision to tolerate this revenue stream based on a comparison with potential regulatory penalties.

The documents suggest a stark cost-benefit analysis. While the revenue from scam ads is estimated at nearly $7 billion annually, the company’s internal risk models projected that regulatory fines for these violations would likely cap at around $1 billion. Instead of punishing or deplatforming, they merely charge a higher fee from these individuals and organisations.

It’s important to keep in mind that Meta is partly responsible for one-third of all successful scams in the US today. Worldwide, the total cost of ad fraud was estimated at $81 billion in 2022 and was expected to surpass $100 billion in 2023, showing that current measures aren’t keeping up with increasingly sophisticated scams.

Furthermore, internal memos revealed the existence of revenue guardrails for safety teams. In one specific instance, a fraud prevention initiative was restricted to actions that would not reduce total ad revenue by more than 0.15% (approximately $135 million).

This explicit capping of safety measures based on revenue impact demonstrates that the risk premium is a protected income stream, insulated from the full force of the company’s own trust and safety capabilities.

Who is profiting and how?

The digital advertising ecosystem, once heralded as a precision instrument for commercial democratisation, has metamorphosed into a complex adversarial theatre where the economic interests of platforms and the operational methodologies of fraudsters have become dangerously aligned. These systems prioritise engagement metrics such as Click-Through Rate and Estimated Action Rate (EAR) over content veracity, creating a fertile substrate where fraudulent actors do not merely survive but thrive.

At the core of the ad delivery engine lies the auction formula, a mathematical arbiter that decides which advertisement is shown to a user at any given millisecond. You don’t win the bid with money on platforms like Google, Facebook, or Instagram; you win it with a combination of ad quality and EAR.

When a fraudster runs a campaign promising “Guaranteed 500% Returns in 24 Hours” or “Miracle Weight Loss Without Dieting,” users interact with these ads at high rates. The algorithm, blind to the veracity of the claim and optimising strictly for the probability of action, registers this high interaction as a signal of quality and relevance. Consequently, the auction mechanism rewards the fraudster with a higher EAR, which inversely lowers their Cost Per Mille or Cost Per Click.

In effect, the platform’s efficiency algorithms subsidise the distribution of scam content, allowing fraudsters to reach vast audiences at a fraction of the cost paid by legitimate brands.

The digital ad fraud ecosystem has matured into a sophisticated business-to-business economy. While the end-point scammers running fake crypto exchanges or counterfeit e-commerce stores bear the operational risk, a vast shadow supply chain of service providers extracts guaranteed profits at every stage of the fraudulent lifecycle. These entities operate with the efficiency of legitimate SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) companies, often earning monthly recurring revenue (MRR) regardless of whether the scammer’s campaign succeeds or fails.

The primary beneficiaries are vendors of evasion technology. Cloaking services, which filter traffic to hide malicious landing pages from platform moderators, have evolved into subscription-based platforms. Services like “TrafficArmor” and “Cloaking House” operate openly, charging tiered monthly fees ranging from $30 to $600, or utilising pay-per-click models where scammers pay premium rates (e.g., $129 for 32,500 clicks) to ensure their ads survive automated review. These companies profit by effectively selling invisibility, creating a technological tollbooth that every high-end fraudster must pay to access the audience.

Supporting this is the Bulletproof Hosting industry. Unlike legitimate hosts that comply with takedown requests, providers like Strox or SpeedHost247 charge premiums (e.g., $85/month or $3/day) to host malicious landing pages on servers explicitly designed to ignore abuse reports and law enforcement inquiries. By commoditising resilience, they ensure that even when a scam is detected, the infrastructure remains operational long enough to be profitable.

Fraud requires a constant supply of fresh identities to bypass platform bans. This has enriched Dark Web marketplaces and account brokers, who act as wholesalers of digital reputation. The most lucrative commodities are Verified Business Managers who hack or farm Facebook/Meta ad accounts with high spending limits and histories of legitimate activity. A verified BM can fetch $120 to $250, while aged accounts (which look less suspicious to algorithms) sell for $45–$50.

This sector also profits from the Stolen Credit model. Brokers sell stolen credit card details for as little as $10–$40, which fraudsters then link to compromised agency accounts. This arbitrage allows scammers to run thousands of dollars in ads using other people’s money, while the identity brokers secure risk-free profit from the initial data sale.

Perhaps the most significant evolution is the shift to Scam-as-a-Service (ScaaS). Technical syndicates now build and lease entire fraud kits (pre-coded phishing sites, crypto drainer scripts, and back-end management panels) to lower-level criminals.

“Instead of charging a flat fee, these developers often take a commission. For instance, the Inferno Drainer malware operated on a 20% commission model, syphoning off a fifth of all stolen funds from its affiliates, generating over $87 million in illicit profit before ceasing operations. This franchise model allows technical groups to scale their revenue infinitely without ever directly engaging with a victim,” said Reuters journalist Jeff Horwitz, who has been covering the alleged ad-related irregularities involving Meta.

Finally, the demand for human engagement signals has created a labour economy in Southeast Asia (e.g., Vietnam, Myanmar) and parts of Eastern Europe. “Click Farms” or “Fraud Farms” employ low-wage workers to manually interact with ads, solve CAPTCHAs, and warm up accounts.

“These operations charge roughly $1 per 1,000 clicks/likes, creating a volume-based revenue stream that exploits global wage disparities to defeat advanced behavioural biometrics. By providing the human touch that algorithms crave, these farms monetise the very mechanism designed to stop them,” Horwitz said.

And it doesn’t stop there. The data collected at these farms is often resold. If you’ve been the victim of a cybercrime, there’s a 34% chance it will happen again if you’re an individual, and an 84% chance if you’re a business. Once scammed, you can end up on what’s called a ‘suckers list,’ marking you as an easy target. These lists are valuable, and people are willing to pay a lot to get them.

How is the world reacting to it?

The world is reacting to the industrialisation of ad fraud with a shift from “user beware” to platform liability. In 2024 and 2025, governments and industries moved to dismantle the economic impunity of platforms, forcing them to bear the costs of the fraud they facilitate.

The most significant development is the regulatory move to force reimbursement. For example, the UK Payment Systems Regulator implemented in 2024 a mandatory reimbursement requirement for Authorised Push Payment (APP) fraud. Crucially, the liability is now split 50:50 between the sending bank and the receiving payment service provider.

While this primarily targets banks, it has created immense pressure from the financial sector on tech platforms. Banks, now on the hook for millions in refunds, are aggressively lobbying for a “polluter pays” model, arguing that since 60–80% of scams originate on Meta’s platforms, the tech giants should contribute to the reimbursement pot.

Effective December 2024, Singapore’s framework assigns specific duties to financial institutions and telcos to mitigate phishing scams. If banks fail to send real-time transaction alerts or impose cooling-off periods, they are liable for losses. This creates a regulatory precedent where infrastructure providers are held financially accountable for gatekeeping failures. Governments are moving beyond voluntary codes of conduct to enforceable legislation with massive financial penalties.

The “UK Online Safety Act,” fully enforceable in 2025, requires platforms to proactively prevent fraudulent advertising. Non-compliance can result in fines of up to £18 million or 10% of global annual turnover (potentially billions for Meta).

In Europe, something similar is happening with the “Digital Services Act.” The European Commission has opened investigations into “Very Large Online Platforms” regarding their risk mitigation for fraudulent ads. The DSA empowers the European Union to fine companies up to 6% of their global turnover if they fail to manage systemic risks, including the spread of financial scams.

In Australia, the “Scams Prevention Framework,” which was passed in early 2025, introduces mandatory codes for banks, telcos, and digital platforms. It includes fines of up to AUD 50 million for non-compliance, specifically targeting the failure to detect and remove scam content.

There is also other litigation from celebrities. For example, Andrew Forrest vs Meta is an ongoing case where Australian billionaire Andrew Forrest pursued Meta in both Australian and US courts over the proliferation of crypto scams using his likeness. While the Australian criminal case was dropped due to evidential hurdles, the US civil lawsuit survived a motion to dismiss in 2024.

This case is pivotal as it challenges Section 230 immunity often claimed by platforms, arguing that Meta’s ad tools contributed to the content creation, thereby stripping them of neutral publisher status.

Even the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission sued Meta for aiding and abetting false conduct by publishing scam ads featuring public figures, arguing that Meta’s algorithms actively targeted these scams to susceptible users.

Meta has, under immense pressure, reversed its 2021 decision to abandon facial recognition. In late 2024, the company began testing facial recognition technology to combat “celeb-bait” scams. The system compares faces in suspected ads against the profile pictures of public figures.

If a match is found and the ad is a scam, it is blocked. This marks a significant concession, as it acknowledges that privacy concerns regarding biometrics are outweighed by the need to stop the financial bleeding caused by industrial-scale fraud.

Major players like Meta, Coinbase, and Match Group have formed coalitions to share intelligence on pig-butchering operations, aiming to sever the communication lines between the scam compounds and their victims.

Engagement fuels fraud risks

This is the aftermath of prioritising engagement over verification. You end up with an ecosystem where scams and fraud flourish, and customers get hurt. At the heart of this crisis lies the EAR algorithm, a mechanism that inadvertently subsidises deception by rewarding the hyper-engaging nature of scams with lower distribution costs. This economic alignment between the platform’s profit motives and the fraudster’s operational goals has created a “Market for Lemons,” where predatory content effectively crowds out legitimate commerce.

The “Retargeting Loop” further exacerbates this by trapping vulnerable populations in algorithmic echo chambers, commoditising their susceptibility, and reselling it through the secondary market of recovery scams.

Technologically, the ecosystem has evolved into an asymmetric arms race, where enforcement is consistently outpaced by evasion. The transition from simple static landing pages to Generation 4 cloaking technologies, which are capable of analysing device telemetry, battery status, and gyroscopic movements in milliseconds, demonstrates that fraud is no longer the domain of opportunistic amateurs. It has industrialised into a sophisticated Fraud-as-a-Service economy. This shadow supply chain, composed of bulletproof hosting providers, identity brokers on the dark web, and commercial cloaking services, operates with the efficiency of the legitimate software sector.

By lowering the technical barrier to entry, these enablers have democratised access to high-end evasion tools, allowing even low-skilled actors to launch enterprise-grade attacks against global platforms.

The failure of self-regulation is now evident in the global legislative pivot toward platform liability. For over a decade, the industry operated under a “user beware” paradigm, but the sheer scale of financial loss has forced a regulatory correction. Initiatives like the United Kingdom’s mandatory reimbursement requirement and Singapore’s “Shared Responsibility Framework” signal the end of platform immunity.

By shifting the financial burden of fraud from the victim to the infrastructure providers, regulators are attempting to realign economic incentives. Only when the cost of hosting a scam exceeds the revenue generated from its ads will platforms invest the necessary resources to close the technological loopholes they currently tolerate.

Ultimately, the future of the digital advertising economy hinges on a fundamental shift from plausible deniability to mandatory verification. The era of anonymous algorithmic bidding must yield to a “Know Your Business” standard, where access to the ad auction is predicated on verified identity rather than mere creditworthiness.

As Generative AI threatens to flood the web with infinite synthetic content, the only viable defence is a strict chain of custody for digital identity. If structural reform doesn’t ensue soon, corporate social media platforms will slowly transform into a black market without oversight.

The world is reacting, but laws are struggling to keep up with fast-moving algorithms. For now, as a reader and consumer, be careful, any ad you see on Instagram or Facebook could be a scam, backed by Meta Platforms, the world’s biggest advertiser.

The post Meta lets scammers pay to play appeared first on International Finance.

The semiconductor industry loves a good comeback story, but what happened next was a total teardown. When the board appointed Lip-Bu Tan as CEO in March 2025, they handed the keys to a demolition expert. Tan, a venture capitalist and the architect of Cadence Design Systems’ 3,200% stock rise, had spent months on Intel’s board complaining about “bloat” and a “risk-averse culture” before resigning in frustration in August 2024. Now, he was back, and he wasn’t asking for permission to change things. He was demanding a revolution.

From his appointment in March through the closing days of December 2025, Tan orchestrated perhaps the most aggressive corporate restructuring in modern tech history. He slashed the workforce, sold off prized assets, nationalised part of the company, and even took money from his fiercest rival, all to fund a “Hail Mary” pass on a new AI architecture.

Breaking the frozen middle

To understand why Lip-Bu Tan’s arrival felt like an earthquake, you have to understand the soil conditions he inherited. For years, Intel had been plagued by what insiders called the “frozen middle,” layers upon layers of middle management that insulated decision-makers from engineering realities.

In his first town hall meeting in April 2025, Tan didn’t mince words. He stood on stage and told the assembled staff that the outside world was seeing the company as “too slow, too complex, and too set in our ways.” He urged them to be “brutally honest” about their failings, a shocking admission for a company that had spent decades drinking its own Kool-Aid.

Lip-Bu Tan’s philosophy was simple. Engineers should run engineering companies. He had been horrified to discover that some project teams at Intel were five times larger than comparable teams at AMD, yet produced inferior work. The problem was a proliferation of “meetings about work” replacing the actual work.

Managers were incentivised to grow their headcount rather than their output. Tan declared war on this metric immediately. In a memo titled “Our Path Forward,” he explicitly stated that the size of a manager’s team would no longer be a badge of honour.

The resulting purge was swift and painful. Throughout the spring and summer of 2025, Tan initiated a “systematic review” of the workforce that went far beyond the standard corporate trimming. By the end of the year, Intel had cut approximately 33,000 roles, bringing the headcount down from nearly 109,000 to around 75,000.

The marketing, HR, and administrative divisions were decimated, but Tan also took a scalpel to product management teams he felt were creating “roadmap noise,” generating requirements for products that would never be profitable.

Apart from firing people and rewiring the organisational chart, Tan elevated the leaders of process technology, design, and manufacturing directly to the “Executive Team,” bypassing the business unit general managers who had previously acted as gatekeepers. If you were building the chips, you now had a direct line to the CEO.

If you were managing the people who built the chips, you were likely looking for a new job. It was a brutal cultural reset, designed to reduce “decision latency” and force the company to move at the speed of the AI market, not the speed of an internal committee.

Selling silver to save the ship

While Lip-Bu Tan was fixing the culture, he also had to fix the bank account. The “Smart Capital” strategy of the previous era had left Intel cash-poor just as it needed to buy expensive High-NA EUV lithography machines for its new factories.

The company needed liquidity, and it needed it fast. Tan looked at Intel’s sprawling portfolio and decided to amputate everything that wasn’t essential to the core mission of making high-performance logic.

The biggest casualty was “Altera,” the programmable chip unit Intel had acquired in 2015. For a decade, Intel had clung to the “integrationist” philosophy that Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) would eventually be merged into the CPU package for every data centre server. Lip-Bu Tan saw this for what it was: a distraction.

In April 2025, he pulled the trigger on a deal to sell a 51% controlling stake in Altera to the private equity firm Silver Lake for $8.75 billion. This deal was significant for the cash it generated and for what it signalled. By turning Altera into an independent entity, Tan was effectively admitting that the integration strategy had failed. It freed Altera to partner with whoever it wanted (even ARM or RISC-V vendors), and it also rescued Intel from the operational headache of managing a completely different silicon architecture. The $8.75 billion injection was a lifeline, allowing Intel to keep the lights on in its Arizona and Ohio construction sites without resorting to high-interest debt that would have crippled its balance sheet.

Lip-Bu Tan further used the fiscal year 2025 to “kitchen sink” every bit of bad news he could find. The company took massive write-downs and restructuring charges, leading to ugly quarterly earnings reports that would have panicked a less experienced CEO. But Tan knew that to rebuild, he first had to clear the rubble. He was willing to sacrifice short-term stock performance and endure the headlines about “record losses” to reset the baseline for 2026. It was a classic private equity move executed on a public market stage, and it stripped the asset down to its studs so as to rebuild it properly.

Goodbye Falcon, hello Jaguar

Financial engineering can save a balance sheet, but only product engineering can save a tech company. And in early 2025, Intel’s product roadmap was a mess. The company had missed the generative AI boat entirely.

Its “Gaudi 3” accelerator, launched to compete with NVIDIA’s H100, was a commercial dud. Despite offering decent specs on paper, it lacked the software ecosystem to break NVIDIA’s CUDA moat, and enterprise customers largely ignored it.

Worse, the next big hope, a chip called “Falcon Shores,” was dead on arrival. Originally billed as a revolutionary “XPU” that would combine CPU and GPU cores on a single die, Falcon Shores had suffered from shifting specs and delays. By the time Tan took over, it was clear that even if they launched it, it would be a “me-too” product arriving too late to matter. In a move that shocked industry watchers, Tan cancelled the commercial launch of “Falcon Shores,” relegating it to an “internal test vehicle.”

He decided to skip a generation. Instead of fighting NVIDIA’s current lineup, Tan pointed the company toward late 2027 and a new architecture called “Jaguar Shores.” This was a bet on “rack-scale” computing. Tan realised that in the age of massive Large Language Models (LLMs), the unit of compute wasn’t the chip anymore. It was the entire server rack.

“Jaguar Shores” is designed to be a beast. Leaked specs reveal a massive 92.5mm x 92.5mm package, suggesting a complex multi-tile design stitched together with Intel’s advanced packaging technology. But the real secret sauce is the light. Under Tan, Intel doubled down on Silicon Photonics, a technology that uses light instead of electricity to move data.

The bottleneck in modern AI clusters isn’t usually the speed of the processor. It’s the speed at which you can move data between processors. NVIDIA solves this with heavy, power-hungry copper cables. Intel’s Jaguar Shores is designed to use Optical Compute Interconnect (OCI) chiplets that can shoot data across the data centre at the speed of light. Lip-Bu Tan is betting that by 2027, the power limits of copper wire will hit a wall, and Intel’s optical solution will be the only way to build larger AI brains.

To feed this beast, Tan also made a surprising play in memory. He partnered with SoftBank’s subsidiary, Saimemory, to develop a new type of memory called Z-Angle Memory (ZAM). Unlike the standard High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) that is currently in short supply, ZAM uses a diagonal vertical stacking method to pack more density into a smaller space. Intel claims it could offer two to three times the capacity of current memory at half the power. It’s a long shot (prototypes aren’t due until 2028), but it showed that Tan was done playing catch-up. He was trying to change the rules of the game.

Capital restructuring

By August 2025, even with the Altera money and the layoffs, the math wasn’t adding up. Building the world’s most advanced chip factories costs hundreds of billions of dollars, and Intel was running on fumes. Lip-Bu Tan realised he couldn’t do it alone. He needed partners, and he wasn’t picky about where they came from.

What followed was a capital restructuring so complex and unprecedented that it blurred the lines between private enterprise, national security, and industrial policy. First came the US government. In a historic move, Washington converted $8.9 billion of promised “CHIPS Act” grants into a direct 10% equity stake in Intel. This was a crossing of the Rubicon. Intel was designated a “National Champion,” too big to fail and partially owned by the taxpayer. Critics called it “State Corporatism,” warning that political pressure could now dictate where Intel built its factories or who it hired. But for Tan, it was survival.

Then came Masayoshi Son. The SoftBank CEO, seeing an opportunity to secure a supply chain for his own AI ambitions, poured $2 billion into Intel stock. This tied Intel’s manufacturing future to the Japanese tech ecosystem and gave Tan a vote of confidence from one of the world’s most aggressive tech investors.

But the real shocker came in September. In a twist that felt like the Yankees investing in the Red Sox, NVIDIA agreed to buy a $5 billion stake in Intel. Why would Jensen Huang prop up his dying rival? It was a calculated hedge, as the chipmaker needed to keep regulators off its back by showing that the market was competitive, and it needed a strong x86 CPU ecosystem to host its GPUs. If Intel collapsed, the data centre market might shift entirely to ARM-based processors, where NVIDIA faces stiffer competition. For Tan, taking money from NVIDIA was a humbling pill to swallow, but it stabilised the stock price and signalled to customers that Intel wasn’t going anywhere.

The new Intel workforce

What Lip-Bu Tan’s revolution actually felt like inside Intel was less strategic pivot than controlled demolition. Engineers who had spent careers navigating bureaucracy through weekly syncs and quarterly reviews arrived one Monday to find their entire management chain gone. Directors who once oversaw thirty-person teams now report directly to VPs. Mid-level managers, the connective tissue of old Intel, vanished in weeks, not months.

Lip-Bu Tan deliberately shattered Intel’s foundational social contract. For decades, joining Intel meant trading startup lottery tickets for something steadier: job security, incremental promotions, the quiet prestige of building the world’s processors. Engineers are expected to retire with the company. Tan replaced that implicit promise with volatility marketed as meritocracy.

Performance reviews became surgical. Teams were evaluated by taped-out silicon and working chips, not roadmap presentations. Engineers who had optimised for political navigation suddenly found the game unrecognisable.

The response split along generational and temperamental lines. Long-tenured Intel lifers discovered their institutional memory (knowing which VP to cc, which process to invoke) had transformed overnight from asset to liability.

“Everything I knew about how to get things done here became irrelevant,” said a fifteen-year veteran who left for AMD. For them, Tan’s Intel felt like chaos wearing a reform badge.

But others described it as liberation. Younger engineers, frustrated by layers of approval for simple decisions, suddenly had direct access to executives who wanted problems solved, not processes followed.

“I shipped more in six months under Tan than in three years before,” one hardware designer said.

Intel became attractive again, but to a different archetype. It was the place for risk-tolerant designers who wanted massive R&D budgets without startup instability, AI systems engineers lured by foundry ambitions, people energised rather than paralysed by existential stakes.

The talent exodus told competing stories. Senior architects departed for NVIDIA’s AI chip teams or AMD’s data centre divisions, taking decades of x86 optimisation knowledge with them. But Intel simultaneously pulled engineers from Apple’s silicon group, poached packaging experts from TSMC suppliers, and hired machine learning systems designers who had never considered Intel before.

The company was haemorrhaging institutional knowledge while injecting outside perspective, losing the people who knew why things were done a certain way, and gaining people who didn’t care about the old ways at all.

Compensation structures reinforced the shift. Stock grants became more aggressive but tied to specific chip milestones. Bonuses swung wildly based on quarterly execution. Engineers accustomed to predictable compensation discovered their total comp could vary by 30% year-over-year. This was intentional. Tan wanted people motivated by building winning products, not by optimising tenure. It attracted gamblers and builders. It repelled those who valued stability above intensity.

Intel’s old mantra of “constructive confrontation,” spirited debate within supportive structures, gave way to confrontation without cushioning. Town halls where leadership acknowledged uncertainty offered few answers. Slack channels that once buzzed with institutional gossip went strangely quiet. Fear permeated the campuses, yes, but so did clarity. Everyone understood the mandate. It was you who delivered or became irrelevant.

The unresolved question hanging over Intel’s reinvention is whether a company traumatised by mass layoffs and cultural upheaval can still innovate at the scale required to challenge TSMC and NVIDIA, or whether this kind of creative destruction, brutal as it feels, is precisely what competing in the AI-era silicon demands. Lip-Bu Tan bet everything that trauma and transformation are inseparable. Intel’s workforce is living the experiment.

The 18A gamble

All of these manoeuvres, the layoffs, the asset sales, the government bailout, were in service of one singular goal: getting the “18A” manufacturing process to work. This was the finish line of the “five nodes in four years” marathon. Breakthrough 18A was supposed to be the technology that finally put Intel ahead of TSMC, using new “RibbonFET” transistors and “PowerVia” backside power delivery to make chips faster and more efficient.

For most of 2025, it looked like a disaster. Rumours swirled in the summer that yields (the percentage of functional chips on a wafer) were as low as 10%. The industry whispered that the technology was too complex, that trying to introduce two major innovations at once was suicide. NVIDIA, which had been testing the node for potential use, reportedly “halted” its immediate production plans in December—a stinging rebuke.

Yet Tan kept the engineers focused. He refused to let the roadmap slip. And in a photo finish that saved the year, Intel officially announced in late December 2025 that 18A had achieved “High-Volume Manufacturing” readiness. They had done it. They had functional chips, the “Panther Lake” for laptops and “Clearwater Forest” for servers, rolling off the line.

The yield wasn’t perfect, and the external customer list was still thin, mostly Microsoft and AWS committing to specific designs rather than broad volume. But the technical milestone was achieved. Intel had proved it could still manufacture at the bleeding edge.

As 2026 dawns, Lip-Bu Tan presides over a fundamentally different company than the one he took over. It is smaller, leaner, and partially nationalised. It is tethered to a complex web of alliances with competitors and governments. It has bet its future on an optical AI architecture that won’t arrive for two years. But for the first time in a long time, the bleeding has stopped. The “Tan Doctrine” of 2025 was brutal, ugly, and necessary. He dismantled the old Intel to build a fortress that might just survive the AI wars.

Lip-Bu Tan tore Intel apart and rebuilt it in his own image. The layoffs, asset sales, and alliances with governments and competitors were ruthless, and they left scars. Intel is now a high-stakes, high-pressure machine built for the AI era. Tan has proven that survival requires speed, decisiveness, and a willingness to break sacred cows, but the human cost is enormous. Long-tenured engineers walked out, institutional memory was lost, and the culture is harsher and less forgiving. Yet, the gamble is paying off: 18A works, and the company can compete again. Tan has created a lean, dangerous Intel, one that can fight, innovate, and maybe win, but only if it can maintain focus and avoid imploding under its own intensity.

The post Lip-Bu Tan’s brutal Intel reset appeared first on International Finance.

We are not speaking of routine business profits or the slow accretion of real estate value. Instead, we are discussing a massive pivot into the opaque world of digital assets, where the Trump family has erected a multibillion-dollar machine seemingly engineered to bypass every known safeguard against corruption.

The sheer scale of this transformation must be fully appreciated, for it explains why the presidency itself has become inextricably intertwined with the whims and demands of the international crypto elite.

A team of Reuters investigative journalists, Tom Bergin, Michelle Conlin, Lawrence Delevingne, and Tom Wilson, has further shed light on the contentious development.

According to them, while the Trump Organisation’s traditional business activities (the familiar resorts, licensing deals, and real estate ventures) generated approximately $62 million in revenue over a recent reporting period, that tally was dwarfed by the family’s new digital empire.

The family business earned more than $800 million from crypto assets, establishing a “massive pivot” in operational focus. Of that staggering sum, over $463 million flowed from sales of the World Liberty Financial (WLF) governance token, WLFI, while another $336 million was derived from a Trump-branded meme coin project. It means that nearly 93% of the family’s documented income stream now comes from these highly volatile, globally accessible, and lightly regulated digital ventures.

At the heart of such a financial tsunami is World Liberty Financial (WLF), a crypto exchange and DeFi platform that launched in October 2024, promising to replace the limits of traditional banking with open on-chain infrastructure, a noble goal perhaps, if not completely overshadowed by the political proximity of its owners.

The governance token, WLFI, is touted as a mechanism for community-driven decision-making, a utility token giving holders a voice in ecosystem expansion. Yet the true utility appears to be far simpler, far more cynical, serving as a direct mechanism for interested parties, particularly those overseas, to purchase influence.

“The contractual arrangements that link the presidency to the operation are complex by design but clear in their intent, ensuring the maximum flow of wealth directly into the family coffers. Various reports confirm that an affiliated entity holds a substantial ownership stake in the World Liberty Financial holding company, initially reported as high as 60% and currently claimed as 38% via DT Marks DeFi LLC, a company affiliated with Donald Trump and his family members,” the journalists claimed.

Beyond the equity, the Trump family also received an astonishing 22.5 billion units of the WLFI governance tokens, guaranteeing their foundational dominance in the platform. Most strikingly, the family entity is also entitled to claim an additional 75% of net revenue derived from all future token purchases, a mechanism that essentially turns the President’s family into the permanent majority tax collector on the system they created.

The rapid creation of a virtually unprecedented financial pipeline was intentionally focused on foreign capital from the start, demonstrating a proactive effort to leverage the presidency for overseas financial gain.

Reuters detailed a meeting in Dubai where Eric Trump openly pitched investors, urging them to purchase $20 million of WLF governance tokens. The targeted solicitation of overseas money signals that the primary market for this political access was always international, capitalising on the reality that those living outside the US jurisdiction often have the most to gain from regulatory leniency or political favours.

Such a pattern confirms the analysis of the digital wallets holding vast amounts of World Liberty tokens, which found that the overwhelming majority were indeed held by overseas buyers. The shift is a stark move into the shadows of accountability, exploiting the structural opacity of decentralised finance to shield these massive flows of private presidential income from public and congressional oversight.

The enterprise is less a genuine technology venture and more an influence voucher, a clear method for high-stakes buyers to invest in political insurance and access, especially given that WLF has yet to deliver on its promised peer-to-peer lending platform, suggesting that technological utility is not the true value proposition.

Profiling the international clientele

Viewing World Liberty Financial as simply a crypto start-up, a technological venture seeking capital like any other, constitutes a grave error. It functions as an international visa office, a pay-to-play lobbying operation where the price of a governance token is the cost of regulatory or legal immunity from the United States government.

“Look closely at the roll call of those who rushed to invest their money; they form a global rogues’ gallery of the legally embattled and the ethically compromised. These individuals and entities are not paying hundreds of millions because they admire the technical sophistication of a platform that has failed to deliver its core product; they are buying political shelter that only the President of the United States can sell,” Reuters stated.

The most glaring example of such corruption involves the $100 million token purchase by a little-known entity called Aqua1 Foundation, which announced its massive investment shortly after President Trump visited the United Arab Emirates and promoted new commercial deals there.

The Chinese businessman behind the recently registered UAE fund is Guren “Bobby” Zhou, a figure whose own legal history is checkered with far more than simple corporate debt. Zhou, who has had executive roles in multiple businesses, is currently under active investigation in Britain for money laundering, a stunning detail that renders the neutrality of his investment utterly impossible to believe.

One must ask what possible motivation a businessman facing serious money laundering scrutiny could have for funnelling $100 million into the private, family-controlled venture of the sitting US President, if not the desperate, preemptive purchase of political goodwill or protection. The answer is unfortunately clear: the World Liberty token serves as a new global currency for compromise, inviting foreign actors to invest in American impunity.

The pattern of exporting political access for private gain was on flagrant display during the Trump brothers’ international roadshow, turning presidential proximity into a luxury commodity. Consider the spectacle in Sofia, Bulgaria, where Donald Trump Jr. arrived for a red-carpet welcome for a conference titled “Trump Business Vision 2025.”

The key sponsor for the lavish display of political influence was Nexo, a Cayman Islands–based crypto firm that had been aggressively pursued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), eventually paying a $45 million fine for offering unregistered securities.

Yet after the fine, the co-founder of the SEC-sanctioned company, Antoni Trenchev, not only sponsored the presidential son’s tour but was later hosted by the President himself for lunch at his Scottish golf resort.

The photos and glowing social media posts about their “joint vision for crypto in the US” speak volumes, serving as a public advertisement that regulatory transgression can be quickly forgiven, even celebrated, for the right financial contribution. It fundamentally undermines the entire notion of financial law enforcement, transforming it into an obstacle to be overcome, a fee to be paid directly into the family bank account.

The most cynical transaction (the one that set the blueprint for all subsequent dealings) involves the crypto billionaire Justin Sun. Sun, the founder of the Tron blockchain, faced a major SEC lawsuit alleging fraud, the offering of unregistered securities, and market manipulation.

Facing potential arrest, Sun had reportedly avoided travel to the United States. Then the inevitable payment was made, with Sun purchasing $75 million worth of tokens from the Trump-associated WLF. Crucially, almost immediately following the investment, the Trump-led SEC abruptly dropped its high-confidence case against Sun, a decision that reportedly “surprised” even the SEC’s own staff.

It’s the targeted, specific dismissal of a major federal fraud case in direct quid pro quo for tens of millions of dollars. The lesson for the global financial elite is simple: compliance is expensive, but freedom, purchased through the World Liberty Financial conduit, is guaranteed. The network is nothing less than a global concierge service for the criminally or civilly compromised, with the President’s family serving as the ultimate political gatekeepers.

A transactional presidency

The evidence of a direct, transactional exchange between investments in the Trump family’s crypto business and favourable executive action is forensic, demonstrating a clear, damning pattern in which regulatory and criminal constraints are available for purchase.

The correlation between private financial gain and public policy shift begins with the administration’s overt embrace of the crypto industry during the 2024 campaign, a calculated political repositioning that was immediately followed by profound institutional changes.

The centrepiece of such a regulatory reset was the explicit promise to remove the most effective check on the industry, vowing to fire Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Gary Gensler on the first day of the new administration.

It was highly consequential, as Gensler’s SEC had been the industry’s most aggressive antagonist, pursuing over half of all digital asset enforcement actions carried out by the commission since 2015.

The administration, in effect, signalled that the era of scrutiny was over before it even fully began. Following the inauguration, the Trump-led SEC wasted no time in executing what was promised, immediately signalling a massive, favourable shift.

The agency began pausing or reviewing several ongoing crypto cases inherited from the previous regime, suggesting a willingness to halt active enforcement matters or pursue quiet resolutions, a move that immediately created a safe harbour for the very industry that enriched the President’s family.

The systemic consequences are best illustrated by two landmark cases that prove that regulatory impunity is now a commodity, purchasable through the World Liberty Financial structure.

Consider the case of Justin Sun, the founder of the Tron blockchain network, a figure who had reportedly avoided travel to the United States due to the lingering threat of arrest. The SEC’s lawsuit against Sun was abruptly dropped in February 2025, a decision that reportedly “surprised” several SEC officials who had been “highly confident in winning the case.”

The timing here is crucial, for this abrupt legal reversal came immediately after Sun purchased $75 million worth of tokens from the Trump-associated WLF. The implication is undeniable. The dismissal of a high-stakes federal lawsuit was granted only after a seven-figure payment was channelled directly into the presidential family’s private business venture.

If the SEC was highly confident in its case, the sudden withdrawal after a massive private investment suggests political influence overrode the agency’s mission, transforming the justice system itself into a transaction for the highest bidder.

The ultimate exchange of political power for private profit manifested in the presidential pardon issued to Changpeng Zhao (CZ), the founder of Binance, in October 2025. CZ had pleaded guilty in late 2023 to failing to maintain an anti-money laundering programme and had already completed his four-month sentence.

The White House statement accompanying the pardon was telling, brazenly declaring that the move ended “their war on cryptocurrency,” effectively framing the enforcement of federal anti-money laundering laws as a political attack.

Clemency was granted amid “extensive business dealings” between Binance and WLF, including a landmark $2 billion stablecoin transaction that financially benefited the Trump family. Legal experts have rightly pointed out that this use of executive clemency for direct personal business gain is unprecedented in American history, treating the highest office as a vendor of impunity. The chart below highlights how these massive financial transfers coincided directly with profound regulatory favours, creating a transactional timeline in which wealth flows preceded political outcomes.

It’s a dangerous and corrosive precedent, suggesting that wealthy individuals facing US prosecution or regulation need only fund the Trump family’s private ventures to gain immunity, rendering the American justice system optional for the global elite. The cost of freedom, it turns out, is a hefty investment in World Liberty Financial.

The ‘Emoluments Clause’ crisis

Perhaps the most sophisticated and constitutionally alarming aspect of the digital cash machine is the use of the stablecoin USD1 to launder foreign government influence and money directly into the President’s private accounts, a clear and systemic evasion of the Foreign Emoluments Clause.

Stablecoins are designed to maintain a 1:1 parity with a traditional currency, typically the US dollar, requiring the issuers, like WLF, to hold massive reserve assets to back the digital currency. It is within the management of these reserves that the scheme finds its constitutional loophole.

The mechanism came into sharp focus with the involvement of MGX, a state-backed investment firm based in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE). It’s an entity closely associated with a foreign sovereign power. MGX announced a massive $2 billion investment in Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, and crucially, it chose to settle the deal using World Liberty Financial’s recently announced stablecoin, USD1.

It is the cornerstone of the ethical breach. The Trump family’s financial stake runs through DT Marks SC LLC, a company affiliated with the President and his family, which is explicitly entitled to an unknown portion of the “interest earned on the reserve assets backing USD1.”

“By selecting USD1 to facilitate the $2 billion transfer, MGX effectively deposited $2 billion into a financial instrument controlled by the sitting US President’s enterprise, providing WLF with billions in capital to invest and reap returns from,” Reuters said.

Senators Jeff Merkley and Elizabeth Warren immediately recognised this transaction for what it was, demanding urgent answers and labelling the arrangement a “staggering conflict of interest.” They argued that the deal serves as an explicit “backdoor for foreign kickbacks and bribes,” which will “indirectly pay the Trump and Witkoff families hundreds of millions of dollars.”

The payment is essentially “rent” extracted from a transaction that has no inherent connection to WLF’s utility, constituting a digital emolument, a gift or profit from a foreign government entity that is explicitly forbidden by the US Constitution.

The transactional nature of the stablecoin selection was confirmed by WLF itself, which admitted that if USD1 had not been available, MGX and Binance would likely have settled the transaction using a foreign fiat currency or another established stablecoin not connected to the President.

Such an admission proves that the $2 billion payment served a dual purpose, both facilitating the Binance deal and simultaneously serving as a massive, intentional payment to the Trump family, making it an investment in influence and access that otherwise would not have benefited the President.

The fact that MGX, a sovereign wealth proxy, incurred unnecessary risk and complexity by choosing a nascent, Trump-affiliated stablecoin over established alternatives highlights that the non-financial benefit (specifically, leverage over the US President) vastly outweighed any financial cost.

Complicating the situation is the recent emergence of the UAE-based Aqua1 Foundation, a Web3-native fund that surfaced shortly after President Trump visited the Middle East and quickly invested $100 million in WLFI tokens.

Government watchdog groups noted the foundation’s minimal digital footprint and recent registration, suggesting it was quickly established as a vehicle specifically designed to funnel large sums of money into the presidential family’s crypto venture. These transactions emphasise the alarming reality that foreign actors with hidden agendas are actively buying influence over Donald Trump through his opaque and unregulated crypto ventures.

Unprecedented evisceration of American ethics

The Reuters investigation ultimately dissected a machine, describing it as a globally focused, digitally sophisticated engine of wealth generation that relies entirely on the transactional exchange of political power for private profit.

The evidence leads to one inescapable conclusion, which is that the World Liberty Financial structure, combined with the shifts in American regulatory and executive policy, constitutes a fundamental and unprecedented collapse of ethical boundaries within the highest office of the land.

Systemic corruption rests on three intertwined pillars of calculated malfeasance. First, the deliberate, massive financial pivot away from transparent traditional business into the opaque, globally targeted world of crypto, specifically designed to evade the scrutiny that traditional political donations or business dealings would normally invite.

Second, the undeniable transactional sale of regulatory and criminal impunity, demonstrated by the abrupt dismissal of federal lawsuits against wealthy figures like Justin Sun and the stunning presidential pardon of Changpeng Zhao, both occurring amid extensive financial dealings with WLF.

Third, the sophisticated mechanism of the USD1 stablecoin, which allows state-backed foreign entities, notably the UAE’s MGX, to deposit billions into an instrument that perpetually enriches the sitting President, fulfilling the definition of a digital Emoluments Clause violation and creating a catastrophic national security risk.

As law professor Kathleen Clark noted, the investors, whether from the Middle East or facing SEC charges, are not pouring money into the Trump family business because of their technical acumen; they are doing it because they seek “freedom from legal constraints and impunity that only the president can deliver.”

The defence often offered is that the transactions are “legal,” a distinction that only highlights the alarming truth that the WLF crypto machine was expertly engineered specifically to exploit the blind spots in American ethics and financial law. The system was custom-built to be legal but profoundly unethical.

When presidential power, whether through granting pardons or overriding regulatory agencies, has a direct, calculable dollar value that flows immediately into the family bank accounts, the core principle of disinterested public service is destroyed. The President is effectively operating as an executive facilitator for his private crypto clients, a fiduciary of his own financial interests rather than those of the American people.

The lack of guardrails against foreign actors buying influence through these opaque ventures is a ticking time bomb for American democracy. Congress must undertake aggressive and immediate oversight, and judicial review must address how these financial structures violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution’s anti-corruption safeguards. This apparatus of transactional governance must be dismantled before the cost of influence becomes the final price of democracy.

The post The making of a crypto dynasty appeared first on International Finance.