Zero Rss

Major U-Turn: Swedish Parliament Abolishes Permanent Residence Visas For Migrants

Via Remix News,

The Swedish Parliament has officially passed a government bill to end permanent residence permits, which will offer a vastly stricter approach to the country’s immigration policy. Under the new legislation, the government “eliminates the possibility of granting permanent residence permits to asylum seekers” and other immigrant groups specified in the reform.

Set to take effect on July 12, the updated rules dictate that affected individuals will now only be eligible to receive temporary residence permits. However, those who currently hold valid permanent residence will keep their existing status and remain unaffected by the change.

While temporary permits have become standard practice in Sweden over recent years, this reform goes significantly further by preventing specific groups from converting those temporary stays into permanent ones. Through this measure, the Swedish Executive aims to tighten its oversight regarding the long-term status of foreigners within its borders.

This legislative shift takes place amid deep public and political concern over escalating violence tied to criminal networks and the cost of mass immigration. Recent data emerging from Scandinavia, specifically from the Danish Ministry of Finance and analyzed by the White Papers Policy Institute, showed that Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Sweden are spending billions on their migrant populations.

Austrian MEP Harald Vilimsky cites the data, which was complied by the White Papers Policy Institute:

“The financial consequences of mass immigration. The White Paper Policy Institute also refers to the costs for Somalis in this context and concludes that Sweden will spend approximately 117.3 billion euros on the 102,000 Somalis living in Sweden over the next 50 years,” the MEP wrote on X.

Security is also a top concern. For years, Sweden has grappled with rampant shootings, targeted gang retaliations, and turf wars driven by drug trafficking networks, many of them made up of individuals of immigrant origin. Of course, there is also the issue of gang rape, rape, and robberies, which are dominated by foreign offenders.

🇸🇪🔴"I still feel sick when I think about it."

A Swedish court is under fire after an African migrant raped 16-year-old Meya Åberg, with the court ruling the migrant could not be deported because the rape did not last long enough.

The victim is now speaking out.

"During the… pic.twitter.com/QR8XEc2WYD

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) October 23, 2025

In some cases, lives have even been lost as gang violence spiraled out of control in many major cities. According to official police data published in May, “23 people outside these gangs have died and another 30 have been injured in shootings” linked to organized crime over the last three years. Law enforcement officials emphasize that these bystanders were not the intended targets but were rather caught in the crossfire by stray bullets, misidentified by attackers, or targeted simply due to their personal associations with gang members.

This newly approved immigration law aligns with a broader, multi-pronged crackdown targeting individuals connected to organized crime. Notably, the Swedish Migration Agency recently revoked the permanent residence permits of 11 individuals who maintained “strong connections with criminal networks and long stays outside the country.”

According to state authorities, these individuals were living abroad in nations such as “Iraq, Lebanon, Türkiye, United Arab Emirates, and Morocco.” Stripped of their permanent Swedish residency, they have lost access to the national welfare system and now face severe restrictions regarding international travel within the Schengen zone and their ability to conduct business.

Despite these measures, there are still many anti-immigration critics of the current conservative coalition government. They argue it has done little to truly stem the tide of mass immigration and reverse the radical open borders policies that dominated Swedish society for many years.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 02:00

Why Does America Have A 'Diversity Visa'?

Authored by White Papers Policy Institute and James Fulford via American Greatness,

The Diversity Lottery means you can receive immigrants from almost any of these countries on the watch list for human trafficking for the sole reason that “diversity is our greatest strength.”

Lucky you!

The Immigration Act of 1965 abolished the National Origins quotas of the 1924 Act, which had favored European immigrants. As a result, America has had a flood of non-European immigrants . . . and Europeans were, in effect, discriminated against for Visas.

In 1990, the late Teddy Kennedy instituted the “Diversity Visa Lottery” with the specific intention of allowing more Irish immigrants to the U.S.

Since then, it’s been a source of many overly diverse immigrants, some of whom were terrorists or mass murderers. Recently, the Trump administration paused it after a diverse guy from Portugal, Cláudio Manuel Neves Valente, killed two students and wounded nine other students at Brown University.

This is not the first time something like this has happened:

The Brown University shooter, Claudio Manuel Neves Valente entered the United States through the diversity lottery immigrant visa program (DV1) in 2017 and was granted a green card. This heinous individual should never have been allowed in our country.

In 2017, President Trump…

— Special Envoy Kristi Noem (@EnvoyNoem) December 19, 2025

As Kristi Noem writes above:

In 2017, President Trump fought to end this program, following the devastating NYC truck ramming by an ISIS terrorist, who entered under the DV1 program, and murdered eight people.

That was Uzbek bike path attacker Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov, below:

An NBC report from October 31, 2017 said:

The 29-year-old man detained after a flatbed truck drove down a popular lower Manhattan bike path, killing at least 8 people and injuring more than a dozen more, has been identified as an Uzbek national living in New Jersey.

In a report like this, the words “Uzbek National” are, in effect, a euphemism for immigrant.

After it transpired that Saipov was an Uzbek immigrant here on the Diversity Visa, The New York Times found an Uzbek Rhodes Scholar (now at Stanford) to do an op-ed saying, as Steve Sailer blogged at the time:  “An Uzbek Explains Why the Zeroth Amendment Obligates USA to Have the Diversity Visa Lottery: ‘No Person Has a Greater Claim to the American Dream Than Any Other.’”

The November 2, 2017 op-ed by Machmud Makhmudov was titled “We Need the Diversity Visa Lottery,”  and I suppose by “we” Mr. Makhmudov means the citizens of the United States.

By the way, the fact that Makhmudov, now an American citizen, got a Rhodes Scholarship, which Cecil Rhodes intended “to promote unity among English-speaking nations,” is just one more example of high-skilled immigration displacing a better class of American.

At the time of the Uzbek mass killing, Steve Sailer pointed out that he’d called out the Diversity Visa as long ago as 2002 in an article for UPI: “Analysis: The Curious Immigration Lottery” (UPI, July 29, 2002).

Oddly enough, the diversity lottery originated as a way to bring more whites to the United States. White ethnic politicians in America felt that their distant relatives in Europe had been squeezed out by chain migration from the Third World. So, natives of the 14 largest sources of legal immigrants—such as Mexico, India and China—are banned from participating. In particular, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., saw a diversity lottery as a way to boost the number of legal Irish immigrants.

[Center for Immigrants Studies head Mark] Krikorian explained, “It was cooked up in the 1986 law to provide a way to amnesty Irish illegal aliens, since the main amnesty in that law primarily benefited Mexicans. In fact, to this day the lottery is often referred to by congressmen and their staff as ‘The Irish Program.’ But as the program evolved, and as there were fewer and fewer Irish illegals, its emphasis changed, and it’s now more accurately described as the Middle Eastern, East European and African program.”

Only 331 visas were awarded to Irish applicants this year.

But the reason Sailer was writing about this crazy visa in 2002 is because of another immigrant atrocity—when Hesham Mohamed Hedayet, below, shot up the El Al counter at Los Angeles International Airport.

The late Sam Francis wrote at the time:

If it’s proof of the sheer, homicidal insanity of American immigration policy you want, consider the case of the late Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, who achieved immortality of a kind when he shot and killed two people at Los Angeles International Airport last week on July 4. Mr. Hedayet may or may not have been a “terrorist,” actually connected to some formal terrorist organization. But he certainly was an immigrant.

Mr. Hedayet, himself shot down by an El Al security guard after he began blasting by-standers at the El Al ticketing area on Independence Day, was in this country legally, through the grace of a program known as 245(i), which is supposed to let in aliens who meet certain work qualifications and which both President Bush and a bipartisan coalition of the Open Borders lobby have been trying to expand. But the only way that Mr. Hedayet was even able to apply for legal status under 245(i) is that his wife won a lottery.

The lottery in question awards a green card, the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s ticket of legal immigration status, on the basis of “diversity” to some 55,000 foreigners every year. Once she got her green card and became legal, then her husband could apply for legal residency himself under 245(i) and stay here if he paid a fine of $1,000.

Welcome to America in the 21st century. [More]

It’s now America in the second quarter of the 21st century, and it’s finally time, with the Trump administration firmly in control, to just stop doing this. While Trump can simply refuse to issue refugee visas, as head of the Executive Branch, the Diversity Visa Lottery is a congressionally mandated program, and needs to be repealed by Congress. One avenue for this would be the Assimilation Act, of which we wrote last week, whose

structure and provisions align closely with core America First priorities: it ends exponential family-chain migration, eliminates the anti-assimilation diversity lottery, imposes a national-interest gate that includes cultural considerations, and raises concrete assimilation and self-sufficiency bars. The Assimilation Act represents the strongest congressional attempt in generations to halt mass immigration and to replace it with an immigration system focused upon quality and cultural compatibility.

There are other options for repeal. The America First Policy Institute wrote in February that:

After 30 years, the Diversity Visa Program does not advance America’s national interest, nor was it ever designed to do so. Indeed, sold under the guise of “diversity,” the program was unabashedly designed to import less-educated, low-skilled workers of Irish descent to appease the constituencies of Northeast politicians. The program has been riddled with fraud from its inception, making security checks and eligibility determinations unreliable. Additionally, lax rules that fail to address the dangers posed by state sponsors of terrorism and other terrorist groups present significant national security concerns.

The Trump administration has rightfully paused the Diversity Visa Program in the wake of the shooting at Brown University. America’s immigration programs should not be designed based on the ease with which foreign nationals can use (or abuse) them. Instead, such programs should place the interests of Americans first. It is time that Congress ends the DV Program and replaces it with a program that promotes merit-based immigration, where individuals are selected to come to the United States based on education, skill, self-sufficiency, and ability to contribute to our economy and society.

Thirty-plus years of “diversity” is enough.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 23:20

SpaceX IPO Lifts Off As Data Center Race Moves From Ashburn To Abilene To Space

SpaceX surged 19% on Friday in its Nasdaq debut following the world's largest IPO, closing near $161 after opening at $150 and valuing the company north of $2 trillion.

J.P. Morgan + SpaceX= Largest IPO

Congratulations to the @spaceX team on this milestone, we were proud to serve as a lead bookrunner on the transaction. pic.twitter.com/axxob266QP

— J.P. Morgan (@jpmorgan) June 12, 2026

Investor excitement over the potential commercialization of the Starship mega-rocket is certaintly a major driver, but also markets are beginning to view SpaceX as one of the most pivotal players in the emerging orbital data-center race, where launch dominance, Starlink infrastructure, satellite manufacturing scale, and plunging access-to-orbit costs could position Elon Musk's rocket company at the center of the next frontier in AI compute.

Nearly six months ago, we read the tea leaves and told readers how to position ahead of the SpaceX IPO and the coming space-and-data center buildout race in low Earth orbit. That thesis is moving from speculative to investable, after SpaceX's public-market debut yesterday and Starship commercialization story nears (read report).

Starship is a very big rocket https://t.co/0RyGe3CPzS

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 13, 2026

A continuation of the space-based data center theme and how to profit comes from Barclays analyst Brendan Lynch in a new report titled "Ashburn, then Abilene, then space."

Lynch sees the story of space-based data centers gaining ground as territorial deployment woes materialize amid intensifying constraints on power, land, and grid.

This year alone, hyperscalers plan $800 billion in capex to build out data centers. There is growing resistance to the buildout, which has already derailed nearly half of the nation's planned 16-gigawatt capacity, with only 5 gigawatts currently under construction.

The good news for terrestrial-based data centers is that Lynch and his team don't see orbital data centers as a likely threat over the next decade, citing launch costs, radiation-resistant hardware needs, thermal-management limits, bandwidth constraints, and regulatory uncertainty.

The big attraction in space is unlimited solar power and no permitting. Orbital data centers could use near-continuous solar energy without relying on local utilities, grid interconnection waits, land availability, zoning approvals, or water-intensive cooling systems. Lynch noted that solar panels in orbit can generate up to eight times more power than terrestrial solar panels because of constant sunlight and the absence of atmospheric interference.

However, the analyst noted that the economics of orbital data centers remain a major roadblock. He estimated that orbital data centers cost roughly $51 billion per gigawatt to build and operate over five years, compared with about $16 billion per gigawatt for terrestrial data centers.

Lynch said, "However, there is still a long way to go before the economics and engineering make orbital data centers feasible at scale. Currently, orbital capacity is ~3x more expensive per MW than terrestrial, primarily due to high launch costs. Additionally, further progress must be made on engineering challenges, such as radiation-resistant hardware, thermal management, and connectivity."

Google estimates launch costs would need to fall below $200 per kilogram by 2035 for its orbital-compute vision to work, while SpaceX's Falcon Heavy is currently around $1,500 per kilogram.

Given these constraints, Lynch does not see orbital data centers as a "threat to our coverage with data center exposure (DLR, EQIX, IRM, AMT) in the next 10 years."

Now he added, "Beyond 10 years, it is harder to handicap the impact, but if space-based DCs come to fruition, it will likely be complementary to traditional deployments."

"That said, as technology advances and costs come down, we anticipate orbital capacity will gain momentum," the analyst noted.

The moment when launch costs plummet will likely hinge on the Starship commercialization timeline, which could see full-scale commercialization around 2027-28 and, really, at the end of the decade.

Starship is still transitioning from test vehicle to commercial platform. The first monetization wave is likely internal SpaceX demand, mainly Starlink deployment, larger satellites, orbital AI-compute demos, and NASA-linked lunar spacecraft.

Reuters reported SpaceX is aiming to begin orbital AI-computing demonstration missions by late 2027, a key validation point for the orbital data center.

Lynch added more color about the orbital data centers:

How data centers in space operate

Power

• Most orbital data center plans involve many satellites in low earth orbit operating collectively to form the "data center" in space, similar to how terrestrial data centers are comprised of many server racks. Clusters of satellites are often called constellations.
• Large solar panels supply near-continuous power. Satellites can be placed in sun-synchronous orbits (e.g., "terminator" orbits) to maximize solar exposure. Batteries are also required to store energy for eclipse periods when satellites pass into earth's shadow.

Communication network

• Optical laser links connect satellites so that they can share data. They are a high-speed method of transmitting data through laser beams. This is the same technology that some satellite operators use to provide broadband capacity on earth.
• Satellites transmit data to ground stations, which serve as the "middleman" between the data center and users. Constellations will likely require thousands of ground stations because low earth orbit satellites only pass in range of each ground station for a few minutes per orbit. Ground stations have large antennas to communicate with satellites either through radio waves or optical laser links. Radio waves provide reliable, regulated, lower-bandwidth connectivity, while optical links enable high-capacity, high-efficiency data transfer but require precise alignment and are sensitive to atmospheric conditions. Ground stations will also have fiber optic cables to connect with users.

Compute and cooling

• Advanced computing in space requires radiation-tolerant or radiation-hardened chips. Several semiconductor companies, including NVDA (covered by Tom O'Malley), are exploring specialized space-based computing infrastructure.
• Liquid cooling removes heat from chips, and then radiators dissipate heat as infrared radiation into deep space. Traditional air cooling methods don't work  due to the lack of atmosphere. Compute density per satellite is primarily limited by the rate at which heat can be radiated into space.

Operations Satellites

• Satellites are launched into space via rockets designed for heavy loads, similar to how traditional satellites are launched, but conceivably at much larger scale.
• Physical maintenance will likely be limited, but software updates are possible. Satellites will likely have redundant components and built-in work-arounds in case of hardware failure.
• Most business models assume no servicing or upgrades. Instead, satellites that reach the end of their operating life will be replaced by new ones carrying the latest technology. Most satellites are expected to have a 5-year useful life. At the end of life, satellites are typically de-orbited into the atmosphere to burn up.

Why data centers in space are attractive

Power

• Space provides less constrained access to solar power with fewer bottlenecks to scale vs. terrestrial power grids. Developers are not reliant on utility companies to provide power infrastructure.
• Power is generated and consumed in the same location, avoiding transmission losses and grid interconnection constraints.
• Solar panels in orbit can generate up to 8x higher output due to constant sun exposure and lack of atmospheric interference (molecules in the atmosphere absorb, scatter, and reflect sunlight, reducing the solar energy that reaches terrestrial solar panels). Solar power in space is also more stable than earth because there are no clouds or weather issues.

Land

• Suitable land sites with sufficient power are increasingly scarce in key data center markets globally. Space offers a solution to land constraints.
• Orbital data centers avoid many challenges faced by terrestrial development, including community opposition, environmental remedies, zoning restrictions, etc.

Resilience

• Infrastructure in space is less exposed to disruption from natural disasters, grid failures, and geopolitical events.
• Constellations of satellites offer high resiliency because workloads can be shifted between satellites if one goes down.

Design

• The modular design enables a more efficient capacity build out, where infrastructure is scaled via incremental satellite launches rather than large upfront development projects. Over time, this could reduce capital intensity and development risk.
• Water usage is one of the most common critiques of terrestrial data centers, particularly as AI increases compute density and cooling needs. Orbital data centers do not require evaporative water cooling

Challenges to near-term deployment

Physical

• Satellites will require very large solar panels to generate sufficient power for AI workloads. Satellites that support compute functions (instead of communications) might need to be ~10x larger to achieve attractive economies of scale.
• Space requires specialized IT hardware due to radiation which can corrupt data unpredictably and degrade equipment. Traditional space hardware uses radiation hardened chips that are more than 100x less powerful than chips in terrestrial data centers and very expensive.
• Thermal management limits compute density per satellite. There is no medium for heat transfer in space (i.e. no air), so satellites require a combination of liquid cooling to remove heat from the chips and radiators to remove heat from the satellite. Heat is emitted into deep space via infrared radiation. The radiators requires a lot of surface area in addition to the large solar panels because radiative heat transfer is relatively inefficient vs. air cooling.
• Orbital data centers face networking and bandwidth limitations. Inter-satellite connectivity (generally via optical laser links) requires complex, precise alignment. Space-to-earth communication via radio waves (most common currently) is heavily regulated and has relatively low bandwidth. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) coordinates global spectrum allocation, and operators require authorization in each jurisdiction where they transmit signals to/from the ground. Optical laser links (emerging technology) are higher bandwidth and higher efficiency but face atmospheric interference due to clouds and weather and require precise alignment. Additionally, space-to-earth connectivity requires sufficient ground stations to receive/transmit data.
• Orbital systems have high failure rates vs. terrestrial infrastructure. When equipment fails in orbital data centers, it can't be replaced. As a result, orbital data centers must be highly redundant and have failover measures. If the satellite fails, it must be entirely replaced.
• Launch capacity is the primary constraint on scaling infrastructure due to the limited frequency of rockets launches. Size and weight are pertinent considerations for satellite design due to constraints of the rocket. Many orbital data center business plans are dependent on improvements to the launch process. In 2025, there were 330 launches globally. Each rocket can carry about 40-100 traditional satellites. However, orbital data centers could eventually exceed the size of the largest rockets that are available, highlighting the need for improved launch capabilities.

Regulatory

• A primary concern is overcrowding in earth's orbit, which increases the likelihood of collisions and long-term debris accumulation. The FCC requires that low earth orbit satellites are de-orbitted within five years of end-of-life, and companies must file orbital debris mitigation plans with regulators. There are currently ~16,000 satellites orbiting earth, but several companies have filed plans with the FCC to collectively increase this by 10x with build-outs in the late 2020s and 2030s.
• There will likely be future challenges due to regulatory and jurisdiction uncertainty given the lack of standards for orbital data centers. For example, spectrum allocation and licensing is currently handled by individual countries. Broader AI regulations and data sovereignty requirements will likely also be factors.

Economic

• Orbital data centers are estimated to cost up to ~$50m/MW, more than triple the cost of terrestrial data centers, at present.
• The biggest financial challenge is launch costs. Google estimates that launch costs would need to fall below $200/kg by 2035 for its vision to be economically viable. SpaceX's current launch vehicle, Falcon Heavy, is the cheapest available at $1,500/kg.
• In addition to the higher build cost, the useful life of orbital data centers is only ~5 years due to limited maintenance and upgrade capabilities and the harsh environment in space (e.g. radiation, extreme temperatures). This compares to decades of useful life for terrestrial data centers which can be maintained and upgraded more easily.'

And now to the part readers care about most: how to profit from the buildout.

Axiom Space (private, not covered)

• The company has been testing cloud computing capabilities on the International Space Station (ISS) since 2022 and launched its first two orbital data center nodes in January 2026. Its nodes are modular units located on the space station.
• Axiom is also building a commercial space station which it plans to launch ahead of the ISS's retirement in 2030.

Blue Origin (private, not covered)

• The company announced Project Sunrise with a target of deploying up to 51,600 satellites for AI workloads. It filed plans with the FCC in March 2026, but faces an objection from NASA regarding the proposed orbit altitude (which overlaps with critical human spaceflight paths) and risk of space debris.
• The company also has plans to launch a 5,000 satellite constellation for global high-speed communications infrastructure, called TerraWave. It aims to begin deploying TerraWave satellites in late 2027. TerraWave satellites are designed for networking while Project Sunrise satellites are designed to enable high-density compute.

Cowboy Space (private, not covered)

• The company filed plans with the FCC to deploy 20,000 orbital data center units in a constellation called Stampede in May 2026. Each unit would repurpose the the upper stage of the rocket as a high-density compute platform. Cowboy Space aims to launch its first rockets in 2028.
• The company is also working on a separate constellation that would send solar power back to earth.

Planet Labs (public, not covered)

• The company partnered with Google (covered by Ross Sandler) for project Suncatcher which has a demonstration mission planned for early 2027 to test Google's TPUs (specialized AI chips designed to accelerate machine learning and inferencing workloads) in space.
• Planet Labs already operates 600+ satellites that form an imaging constellation for geospatial intelligence.

SpaceX (public, not covered)

• The company filed plans with the FCC to launch a million data center satellites for ~100GW of compute capacity in January 2026.
• SpaceX currently operates ~10,00 Starlink satellites and controls ~65% of active satellites globally. Starlink satellites primarily enable communication vs. data center satellites which are designed for high-density compute.

Starcloud (private, not covered)

• The company deployed a ~1kW satellite with a single GPU in November 2025 as proof-of-concept. It plans to launch its next-gen satellite which is 10kW in 2027 and then launch a ~200kW satellite in 2028.
• Its ultimate goal is to deploy 88,000 satellites totaling ~20GW of compute primarily for inference workloads, reaching ~5GW by 2035. Starcloud filed plans with the FCC in March 2026.

Professional subscribers can read much more on SpaceX and the space economy at our new Marketdesk.ai portal. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 22:45

Exxon Weighs Woodside Deal As LNG Becomes Strategic Priority

Exxon Mobil is assessing a range of options to expand its global gas business, with Woodside Energy reportedly among the companies being reviewed as potential acquisition candidates, according to Bloomberg.

No formal approach has been made, and internal evaluations remain preliminary. Both companies have declined to comment.

Bloomberg writes that Woodside offers several strategic advantages for Exxon. As a leading LNG producer with established relationships across key Asian markets, the Australian company would provide immediate scale in a sector where Exxon has historically been less dominant than some of its European peers. Its growth pipeline includes the Louisiana LNG project in the US and major Australian developments such as Scarborough and Browse.

Interest in LNG assets has intensified amid ongoing concerns about global supply security, particularly following disruptions to Middle Eastern export routes. This has increased the value of producers with diversified supply bases and long-term customer contracts in Asia.

For Exxon, any transaction would follow its 2024 acquisition of Pioneer Natural Resources and further broaden its energy portfolio beyond North America. Woodside’s existing partnership with Exxon in the Bass Strait venture could also provide a degree of operational familiarity.

While Woodside is not the only company under review, it stands out as one of the few sizeable LNG-focused businesses available globally. Any potential bid would likely attract significant market attention and serve as an early challenge for new Woodside CEO Liz Westcott.

More broadly, the operating environment for oil and gas producers has improved under the Trump administration. Since returning to office in 2025, President Trump has prioritized domestic energy development through a combination of regulatory rollbacks, faster permitting processes, and support for expanded LNG exports. While commodity prices remain the primary driver of industry profitability, the policy backdrop has generally been viewed as favorable for large producers, encouraging investment, consolidation, and long-term growth projects across the sector.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 21:35

The Inflation Sh*t Is Hitting The Fan

Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance

This week was proof that the inflation story that markets desperately want to go away refuses to cooperate. It also adds to the case that new Fed chair Kevin Warsh could have his hands tied — and may ultimately need to redefine inflation to untie them.

This week the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported another really ugly wholesale inflation print, adding to a growing pile of evidence that inflation pressures are proving far more persistent than policymakers, economists, and investors had hoped.

The Producer Price Index rose 1.1% in May, well above economist expectations of 0.7%. On a year-over-year basis, wholesale inflation accelerated to 6.5%, the highest reading since November 2022.

Even though core PPI, which excludes food and energy, came in slightly below expectations at 0.4% versus estimates of 0.5%, that distinction shouldn’t provide much comfort. The headline figure remains extraordinarily elevated, and businesses are still dealing with rising costs that eventually work their way through supply chains and into consumer prices. CNBC reported:

Most of the acceleration in the PPI — nearly 80% — came from a 2.8% surge in final demand goods prices, the biggest increase ever in a data series going back to December 2009. In turn, 80% of that increase came from a 10.7% jump in energy.

Zero Hedge posted the following chart on X showing the jump:

Economist Peter Schiff noted on X:

Producer prices spiked 1.1% in May, following a downwardly revised 1.1% rise in April. That's back-to-back months of 14% annualized increases. So far in 2026, the PPI is already up 4%. If this pace continues, it will rise 10% in 2026, matching the 2021 gain, the most since 1980.

PPI is often viewed as a leading indicator for future inflation because it measures costs before they reach consumers. When businesses face higher input costs, those costs rarely disappear into some magical accounting black hole. They generally get passed along. Companies can absorb some pain for a while, but eventually somebody pays the bill. Historically, that somebody is the consumer.

The significance of today’s report extends beyond a single monthly data point. It comes on the heels of yesterday’s CPI report, which showed inflation accelerating once again. The Consumer Price Index rose 0.5% during the month, pushing annual inflation to 4.2%. While both figures matched economist expectations, that hardly qualifies as good news.

In fact, inflation has now climbed above 4% for the first time in three years and sits at its highest level since April 2023. Personally I’m not sure how it could be made any clearer to the market that rates are going to have to hold steady or move higher than being nowhere f*cking near the Fed’s 2% “target”.

But markets seem determined to celebrate inflation reports whenever they merely meet expectations. However, there is a difference between meeting forecasts and solving inflation. The Federal Reserve’s target remains 2%. Inflation is currently running at 4.2%. That isn’t victory. It’s more than double the Fed’s target.

Taken together, yesterday’s CPI report and today’s PPI report paint a picture that should make rate-cut enthusiasts increasingly uncomfortable. Consumer inflation is accelerating. Wholesale inflation is accelerating. Energy prices are pushing higher. And the broad disinflation narrative that markets spent the better part of the last year embracing is showing signs of breaking down.

Last month, I argued that markets were underestimating how quickly the conversation could shift from rate cuts to rate hikes. At the time, that seemed like an aggressive position. Most investors were still operating under the assumption that inflation would continue drifting lower, growth would soften in an orderly fashion, and the Fed would eventually ride in with rate cuts to keep the party going.

That assumption looks considerably shakier today. And every inflation report that comes in hot further limits the Federal Reserve’s options.

At best, this data supports a case for keeping rates elevated for significantly longer than markets would like. At worst, it supports a growing argument that the next move from the Federal Reserve may not be lower rates at all…it may be higher.

That possibility still sounds absurd to many investors because markets have spent years conditioning themselves to expect monetary accommodation whenever conditions become uncomfortable. Somewhere along the way, investors became convinced that central banking was supposed to function like a customer service call center for the S&P 500.

Stocks down? Cut rates. Economy slowing? Cut rates. Credit markets stressed? Cut rates. Investors sad about the death of their pet goldfish? Cut rates. Octogenarian billionaires complaining about flatulence that investments are giving them? Cut rates.

Unfortunately for that crowd, inflation doesn’t particularly care about market expectations, portfolio allocations, or CNBC panel discussions about why six cuts are definitely coming next year.

The Fed can tolerate slower growth. It can tolerate weaker sentiment. It can tolerate hedge fund managers with gas and anchors nearly shitting themselves on financial television. What it cannot tolerate indefinitely is inflation running more than double its target while wholesale prices reaccelerate to levels not seen in years.

And that’s where this vice grip keeps tightening. This market is already facing a half-dozen serious roadblocks and questions that all investors should know about. I wrote about them earlier this week and it’s a free read here.

Now, every hot inflation report removes another degree of freedom from policymakers. Every upside surprise forces markets to reconsider assumptions about lower rates, easier financial conditions, and endless liquidity. Every month that inflation remains elevated increases the probability that “higher for longer” eventually becomes “higher still.”

That’s bad news for an economy that has spent the better part of fifteen years becoming addicted to cheap money.

🔥 80% Off If You Subscribe Today. This coupon allows for 80% off of annual subscriptions and results in a 85% savings over paying the monthly rate for a subscription to the blog. You keep the discounted rate for as long as you wish to remain a subscriber.: Get 80% off forever

Higher rates don’t simply affect stock valuations. They tighten financial conditions across the entire economy. They pressure borrowers. They increase refinancing risk. They squeeze commercial real estate. They stress private credit. They raise funding costs. They expose leverage that only works when money is cheap. The longer rates stay elevated, the tighter that grip becomes.

Yesterday’s CPI report showed inflation running at 4.2%, the highest level in more than three years. Today’s PPI report showed wholesale inflation running at 6.5%, the highest level since late 2022.

Neither report supports the case for imminent rate cuts. Together, they strongly support the opposite conclusion. At a minimum, they reinforce the argument that rates cannot be cut anytime soon without the Fed risking what little inflation-fighting credibility it has left. At the extreme, they strengthen the case that policymakers may eventually have to consider raising rates again.

That is a conversation markets still seem remarkably unwilling to have. Instead, investors continue behaving like a rate-cut rescue package is just one meeting away. Every soft data point gets interpreted as bullish because it means cuts are coming. Every strong data point gets interpreted as bullish because growth is resilient. Somehow every possible outcome leads to the exact same conclusion: buy more stocks.

It’s a fascinating intellectual framework. Unfortunately, inflation data has a nasty habit of ruining good stories. We’re already operating in territory that would have sounded ridiculous a decade ago. Inflation remains far above target. Interest rates are sitting near multi-decade highs. Government debt continues exploding. Asset prices remain historically elevated. Consumers are increasingly stretched. Credit markets are showing signs of strain. Yet markets continue acting as though the return of free money is some sort of natural law.

The reality is that the bill for years of monetary excess — and Janet Yellen’s massive super-genius brainpower — is still arriving.

At her final news conference as Fed chair Wednesday, Yellen said the Fed’s failure to bring inflation up to the central bank’s 2 percent mandate is her single disappointment.

“We have a 2 percent symmetric inflation objective. For a number of years now, inflation has been running under 2 percent, and I consider it an important priority to make sure that inflation doesn’t chronically undershoot our 2 percent objective,” she said.

The unprecedented situation we’re in isn’t stabilizing. It’s becoming more unstable. The vice grip on the economy and financial markets is tightening one data point at a time. The screws turn a little further with every inflation report that refuses to cooperate, every producer-price surprise, every CPI release that reminds everyone that inflation never actually went away—it merely stopped accelerating for a while.

The uncomfortable truth is that policymakers spent years trying to convince everyone there was a painless exit from the biggest monetary experiment in modern history. Now they’re discovering the same thing everyone else eventually discovers and the thing that Austrian economists have been screaming from rooftops: there are no painless exits, only delayed consequences.

Now read:

• “This Chart Should Stop You Cold In Your Tracks”

• Strategy’s New Math: Dilution Equals Accretion?

• I, Too, Am Full Of Shit

• Stocks I’d Watch If The Market Keeps Plunging

• Walking Away

• Lest We Forget, Private Credit Is Still Imploding

--

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions.

As of May 20, 2026 I personally no longer actively trade (read my story here). My investing/saving is done by recurring contributions mostly to sector ETFs and a few select equities, trusted third parties who oversee my accounts, and advisors. Such advisors or funds, through individual equities, options, index funds, mutual funds, ETFs, or other securities, may have positions in, exposure to, or holdings of names mentioned herein that I know nothing about. Basically, via index funds, ETFs and individual equities it is possible I could own, have exposure to, or not own anything at any point. As of the same date, May 20, 2026, in an attempt to lead a healthier lifestyle, I’ve also excluded myself from fantasy sports, sports betting, online and in-person casinos and prediction markets.

And all positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 21:00

UBS Checks With Major Restaurant Franchisees Reveal Troubling Consumer Trends

In a continuation of our note on the health of America's restaurant industry, we cite UBS analyst Dennis Geiger for a second straight week, as his coverage of the consumer and restaurant sectors has been spot on. Sentiment toward chain eateries remains "generally cautious," with macro pressures, elevated gas prices, and weak demand among lower-income consumers continuing to weigh on traffic and sales trends.

Last week, Geiger warned, "Challenged traffic and sales trends likely reflect depressed consumer sentiment across several cohorts, elevated gas prices, and other macro headwinds. We are more cautious on restaurant industry trends heading into 2H26, assuming near-term headwinds persist, rebate check benefits fade, and the risk that gas prices stay elevated."

Adding more color to the still-difficult backdrop across the restaurant industry, Geiger and his team held discussions with management teams from several leading restaurant brands to gain deeper insight into evolving consumer spending trends:

Brand & franchisee discussions highlight performance pressured by macroeconomic factors

Our latest discussions with several brands / mgmt teams and select franchisees highlight macro headwinds and elevated gas prices that continue to weigh on industry results. Select brands more exposed to lower income consumers continue to face sales pressures, with our recent discussions with Wingstop and McDonald's franchisees highlighting the current challenges:

1. Wingstop franchisees noted continued negative sss & traffic performance, highlighting multiple potential factors, including: i) ongoing macro pressures impacting key customer cohorts; ii) challenges of lapping robust sales growth in past years, including key sales initiatives such as delivery and marketing growth & expansion into sports; iii) potential customer chicken category fatigue given focus on chicken by most QSR peers as beef costs remain elevated; iv) cannibalization in select highly penetrated markets, particularly via the delivery channel; v) broader QSR value / promo activity; and vi) potentially less social media buzz recently than in years past. However, expectations are that trends should benefit from the world cup in June & July and potentially inflect positive later this year or in early '27. Franchisees noted opportunities exist to enhance the current marketing strategy to increase the brand's relevance and improve messaging surrounding Smart Kitchen and the ability to increase speed / throughput without sacrificing food quality. Additionally, value remains an important focus, with opportunities to promote and highlight value. That said, franchisees indicated still elevated demand to open new stores given returns that remain attractive, without material margin concerns.

2. McDonald's franchisees highlighted choppy performance thus far in 2Q, largely reflecting difficult April comparisons and given the current macro environment, with gas prices having a particularly negative impact on consumer demand among a core lower income cohort. Operators noted challenging macro conditions could continue, while comparisons are difficult in 2H. Despite pressures, our discussions suggest franchisees remain optimistic about the outlook for the brand and sales trends as gas prices eventually ease, with several drivers that could help lift sss including: i) recent launch of specialty beverages, including dirty sodas & refreshers which is driving avg check higher, with energy expected in Aug and other menu innovation coming (ie snack wraps news; new sandwich event around chicken); ii) strong marketing / campaigns (ie world cup meal w/ collectibles off to a solid start; Home Alone meal expected in 4Q); iii) compelling value platforms, with the Under $3 Menu and $4 Breakfast Meal Deal expected to gain guest count traction over the coming quarters; and iv) solid gains from digital / delivery & the loyalty platform. Additionally, franchisees noted an increased brand emphasis on utilizing technology & being more digital forward while also improving hospitality. Strategic plans from the Worldwide Convention appear to be focused on the right areas to drive longer-term traffic and sales share gains.

Three Important Facts About the Space

1. Restaurant inflation down slightly in May; Grocery pricing gap grew modestly

Total food inflation was down slightly for the broader food complex in May (3.1% vs. 3.2% April) per gov't data, w/ food away-from-home (FAFH) inflation down slightly m/m at 3.5% (vs. 3.6% in April) while food at-home (FAH) price inflation also decreased to 2.7% (vs. 3.0% in April). May restaurant price inflation remained above grocery (~80 bps), w/ the gap increasing from April (~60 bps). Limited service pricing was 3.3% in May (~flat vs April), while full-service was 3.8% (~flat vs April). We expect restaurant pricing to continue to ease modestly over the coming quarters as higher pricing levels roll off.

2. Value differs by age cohort; Rising prices pressuring restaurant traffic

Recent Technomic industry insights highlighted several industry themes, including: i) value differs by age cohort w/ the Baby Boomer & Gen X consumer more focused on quick service & high quality items, while younger customers also weigh other factors including brand identity, digital convenience, and social values. ii) Rising prices are likely still impacting restaurant industry traffic, with 83% of surveyed consumers noticing higher purchase prices & 63% cooking more at home as a result. Over the NTM, 45% of respondents plan to visit restaurants less, while 38% are actively looking for promotional offers.

3. Expect greater impacts from GLP-1s drugs on restaurants over time

UBS Consumer hosted another call with Michael Yee, UBS Global Head of Biotechnology Research, that highlighted his ~$133BN global GLP-1 market forecast by '30. Total obesity patients treated by GLP-1 in the US are projected to grow from ~5MM in '25 (or 1% of population) to >10MM by '30 (or ~5% of adult population), with upside to the forecasts from new drugs and potentially better convenience and fewer side effects. Specifically, the recently launched GLP-1 oral pills could grow to ~20% of the total GLP- 1 market longer-term. That said, the oral pills are not expected to be game changing near-term in the US due to lower efficacy than injectables. Affordability and accessibility of the drug should improve w/ better insurance coverage (including via Medicare and Medicaid) and lower cash pay costs. Currently, ~50% of GLP-1 users stop taking the drug after 1 yr given the high costs, however as it becomes more affordable, the length of use should extend longer. Key implications for the restaurants sector include: 1) reduced dining out frequency, with the impact likely increasing over time as drug adoption grows, 2) alcohol mix continues to decline for full-service restaurants, 3) a shift in consumer preference towards healthier food options and smaller portion, and 4) lower overall calorie intake even from GLP-1 users with the same restaurant visit frequency. Replay details and slides available upon request.

OpenTable Reservations Data by State

Food Away From Home inflation > Food At Home inflation

With the national average gasoline price exceeding the politically sensitive $4-per-gallon level for 10 weeks, consumers, mainly working-class ones, are in a real financial pinch as the tax-refund sugar is waning (read note). 

Professional subscribers can read more about the consumer at our new Marketdesk.ai portal. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 19:15

Waste Of The Day: Disaster In Small NM Village

Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearWire,

Topline: The Village of Cuba, New Mexico, has had "a sustained and indefensible breakdown in accountability over public funds" since at least 2020, according to a state audit released in May. The report identified dozens of issues, including a public official with $11,471 in unpaid water bills and another who used public funds to buy a Subaru Crosstrek without approval.

Key facts: Auditors found the village never implemented proper processes to monitor its payroll, bank accounts, credit cards, or employee sick leave. There were not enough staff to perform "basic governmental and administrative functions," so the village outsourced almost all financial oversight to private contractors whose work was rarely, if ever, monitored. Some of the village's few finance employees resigned during the audit.

The village's water utility operated at a $3 million deficit over five years. Customers' bills were not based on actual water meter readings. The village instead estimated what each bill should be, with no apparent consistent methodology, the audit found.

All of the village's state and federal grant bank accounts were managed by one employee who often did not share records with anyone else, according to the audit. Nobody kept track of how large portions of the grant funds were spent to ensure they aligned with federal guidelines.

One village employee was enrolled in health insurance but never had their premiums deducted from their paychecks. Two other employees did have premiums deducted but were not enrolled in health insurance. Another was still on the village's health insurance over a year after they retired, auditors found.

A management employee paid themselves $21,464 for unused vacation and sick time, which was more than they had actually earned. The audit does not specify how much the employee was actually entitled to. The former mayor also received a $12,957 payout for unused time off, "contrary to city policy."

Multiple employees remained on the payroll without interruption after failing a drug test, the report found.

After completing the report, State Auditor Joseph Maestas told KOAT 7 News, "I've never seen anything like it."

The Village of Cuba has 640 residents and a $15 million budget this year. It had to modify its budget four times in 2025 because spending was outpacing revenue.

Search all federal, state and local salaries and vendor spending with the world's largest government spending database at OpenTheBooks.com.

Summary: Federal scandals often dominate the political headlines, but Cuba, New Mexico is a reminder that the most egregious mismanagement can often occur locally.

The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 18:40

Fear Of The Signal: Why The State Urgently Wants To Bind Prediction Markets

Authored by Angelo Monaco via The Mises Institute,

A predictive market like Polymarket or Kalshi is a financial exchange where people buy and sell contracts based on the outcome of real-world events. The price of a contract fluctuates between one cent and 99 cents based on supply and demand, directly reflecting the crowd’s collective probability estimate that the event will happen. If the event occurs, the contract settles at one dollar, allowing accurate forecasters to profit while aggregating decentralized information into a real-time predictive tool.

Predictive markets are experiencing a massive paradigm shift. They are rapidly transitioning from a niche internet subculture into a powerhouse financial category. Based on current trading data and institutional trends, predictive markets are not just likely to continue growing; they are scaling at a pace that few financial sectors ever achieve. Monthly trading volumes topped $24 billion, and analysts project total market volume will surpass $240 billion, putting the industry on a realistic path to hit $1 trillion in annual trading volume by 2030.

To a central planner, nothing is more dangerous than an accurate, uncontrolled price signal. This fear is what is precipitating government attempts to either control or outright ban prediction markets. The public-safety explanations offered by regulators are largely a convenient smoke screen for a deeper, self-serving anxiety. When you look at prediction markets through the lens of public choice theory and recognize that government actors operate out of their own self-interest, the real concern isn’t that these markets might fail. The real concern is that they might succeed. Whether it’s an economic forecast or the likelihood of a military intervention the state wants to be the ultimate authority.

Prediction markets succeed because they bypass the echo chambers of institutional punditry and replace them with a brutal, real-time mechanism for truth. Unlike traditional polling or bureaucratic committees, where experts face zero financial consequence for being wrong, prediction markets force participants to back their assertions with capital. The result is a highly efficient forecasting tool that consistently outperforms the rigid, top-down projections of the state.

Consequently, the escalating regulatory crackdowns on these decentralized platforms are not born out of a genuine desire to protect consumers, but out of institutional panic. When a decentralized crowd can forecast economic shifts, policy outcomes, or political realignments with greater precision than a federal agency, the illusion of bureaucratic expertise shatters. Centralized regulators see these platforms as a threat to their existence because a functional market cannot be bullied into compliance. By restricting access or tying these platforms up in endless litigation, regulators are attempting to blindfold the public to preserve their own monopoly on foresight.

Even if you never risk a single dollar on an event contract, prediction markets provide immense, passive value to you as a consumer of information. For the non-bettor, prediction markets function as a highly sophisticated, open-source intelligence utility. They cut through the noise of modern life in a multiple of ways.

We live in an era of hyper-partisan media and corporate punditry designed to manufacture outrage rather than convey facts. By checking a prediction market, you bypass the emotional spin. Because the people moving those numbers face immediate financial penalties for being blinded by bias, the market price acts as a sobriety check. If a cable news host is screaming that a piece of legislation is a “certainty to pass,” but the market contract is stuck at 12 cents, you instantly know the reality doesn’t match the rhetoric.

Prediction markets also work as a more efficient aggregator of information. No single expert, federal bureau, or algorithm can possess all the fragmented pieces of information scattered across the globe. As Friedrich Hayek famously noted, a decentralized price mechanism is the only tool capable of coordinating this “local knowledge.” Prediction markets essentially crowd-source global intelligence.

Polls and bureaucratic reports are static snapshots—by the time they are published, they are often obsolete. Prediction markets are dynamic and continuous. By watching the rate of change in market prices during a major event, you are watching the world process information in real time. If a geopolitical event occurs or an economic indicator is leaked, the sudden spike or drop in a market contract tells you exactly how consequential that information truly is long before an editor can draft an op-ed about it.

When looking closely at how the early 2026 Iran conflict unfolded, prediction markets functioned exactly as the “advanced knowledge utility” they are designed to be. In late 2025 and January 2026, when the initial domestic protests and localized instability began in Iran, mainstream analysts and agencies were projecting a relatively calm energy market. They were predicting Brent crude would average a modest $55 to $60 a barrel for the year.

However, looking at the crude oil options markets and decentralized geopolitical event contracts during the first two weeks of January, a sharp divergence emerged: While talking heads on television were telling the public not to panic, people with capital on the line were actively bidding up the probability of a worst-case scenario. The market was pricing in a “war premium” based on the structural vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz weeks before the US-led coalition initiated strikes in February, as detailed by researchers tracking informed trading in prediction markets.

When the war officially escalated and Iran choked off maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz in early March, legacy media was completely lagging. Prediction markets gave observers immediate clarity regarding the Strait of Hormuz shutdown on Polymarket and IMF PortWatch. Because traders were aggregating raw satellite tracking data, insurance rate spikes, and numbers from regional shipping firms, the market odds shifted columns hours before the Pentagon held press conferences to confirm that 20 percent of the world’s oil supply was effectively stranded. If you had relied solely on conventional energy forecasts in January, you would have been told that a price spike was an outlier event.

Government claims of dangers from predictive markets are at best hyperbole. If we strip away the dramatic rhetoric of politicians and look strictly at the evidentiary record, the “mountain of evidence” the government claims to have is just a few isolated incidents and a heavy dose of protectionism for established gambling monopolies. When pushed to show actual, systemic, widespread negatives rather than hypothetical “what-ifs,” the government’s case falls apart.

The federal government heavily publicized the April 2026 case against the US Army soldier who made over $404,000 using classified information about operations in Venezuela. However, it remains the only major case of its kind involving national security.

When the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) fought Kalshi in federal court to ban congressional control contracts, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals explicitly denied the government’s request for a stay, noting that the CFTC’s concerns about market manipulation and threats to election integrity were speculative and not substantiated by concrete evidence.

This decision cleared the way for the legalization of commercial election event contracts in the United States. In the DC Circuit Kalshi v. CFTC Case it was found that the regulatory agency had exceeded its statutory authority, noting that the agency failed to demonstrate that trading on political outcomes constituted immediate harm to the public interest.

When Minnesota passed a ban, arguments leaned heavily on market share. While traditional casinos operate under tightly-controlled, heavily-taxed state frameworks. Prediction markets represent a massive regulatory end-run: because they frame themselves as financial instruments, they don’t pay state gaming taxes. The “harm” the states are pointing to is often a projected loss in tax revenue and a threat to traditional gaming monopolies, rather than documented societal ruin.

According to the American Gaming Association’s Commercial Gaming Revenue Tracker, prediction market platforms offering sports and event contracts may have cost state governments nearly $950 million in potential gaming taxes since the start of 2025. Because these platforms answer to federal oversight rather than state gambling boards, they typically pay standard corporate tax rates rather than the steep gross gaming revenue taxes imposed on traditional sportsbooks.

At the federal level, suppressing these markets is less about money and more a classic attempt to control the narrative. When the state criminalizes or restricts the voluntary exchange of information under the guise of “market integrity,” it actively chooses to promote and enforce ignorance. This intervention robs the public of a tool for navigating uncertainty, while simultaneously protecting entrenched government institutions from the embarrassment of being publicly corrected by the spontaneous order of the marketplace.

The government’s crackdown on prediction markets exposes a deep paternalistic anxiety. The state’s logic rests on the arrogant assumption that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted to voluntarily exchange risk, analyze information, or process events without a government chaperone.

By cloaking their efforts in the language of “protecting the public,” federal and state authorities are simply trying to suppress a more efficient exchange of information because they fear this mathematical mechanism that accurately reflects public sentiment—and exposes bureaucratic incompetence—in real time.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 17:30

Anthropic Rushes Staff To D.C. After A National-Security Order Yanked Fable In Three Days

Senior Anthropic technical staff have been dispatched to Washington DC, after a Friday night government demand to implement sweeping export controls resulted in the company yanking its two most capable models Friday night after only a few days of public release - Mythos and Fable (Fable being Mythos with guardrails) - over the alleged ability to 'jailbreak' the latter. As of Sunday the models are still down, no restoration date has been set, but sources on both sides told Axios they are eager to resolve it. That said, the two parties best positioned to explain what happened are telling different stories as to how this happened. 

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei

The order is narrow on paper and sweeping in effect. It prohibits access by "any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States, including foreign national Anthropic employees." Anthropic has no reliable way to verify a user's citizenship at the moment they send an API request or open a chat window, and its own staff, customers, and cloud partners are spread across dozens of countries. The company concluded it could not selectively block foreign nationals, so it blocked everyone. Anthropic's other models, including Opus 4.8, Sonnet, and Haiku, are untouched and still running.

The US government, citing national security authorities, has issued an export control directive to suspend all access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States, including foreign national Anthropic employees.

The net effect of…

— Anthropic (@AnthropicAI) June 13, 2026 What The Order Does, And Why It Went Global

The directive came from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's office, and a U.S. official confirmed to Bloomberg that the department sent the letter. Curiously, the letter did not spell out the specific national-security concern behind it. The legal mechanism appears to be the "deemed export" rule, the decades-old principle that releasing controlled technology or source code to a foreign person counts as an export to that person's home country. Applying it to a deployed commercial frontier model is, by NBC's account, the first time a leading AI company has pulled a publicly deployed model offline because of federal intervention.

What we do know about Lutnick's letter; it requires a license for the export, re-export, or domestic transfer of the two models and reaches any foreign person on U.S. soil. It does not, on its face, bar U.S. citizens or the U.S. government, and the cutoff for American users is a consequence of Anthropic's inability to filter rather than the order's intent. Government access is murkier still: CyberScoop reports the National Security Agency had been given Mythos 5 to conduct offensive cyber operations through Project Glasswing, and it remains unclear how the directive affects that program. Foreign vetted partners were clearly swept in, with the Korea Times reporting that Korean Glasswing members including the Korea Internet & Security Agency, SK Telecom, and Samsung lost their access. In other words, the order disconnected allied security partners abroad while a U.S. agency's separate channel to the more powerful sibling model appears, on the order's logic, to sit outside its reach.

Confirmed cut offs:

• Private/commercial users. Fable's public, API, and enterprise users, plus the private-sector Glasswing partners (the vetted cyber firms) who had Mythos.
• Foreign government and intergovernmental partners. The Korea Times reports Korean Glasswing members (the Korea Internet & Security Agency, SK Telecom, Samsung) lost access, and Security Affairs reports European Glasswing partners including NATO and ENISA (the EU's cybersecurity agency) were cut off with no notice. Those are foreign nationals under the order, so the order reaches them directly.

The reach inside the United States is the most unusual part, and it produced an awkward result for Anthropic; their own employees can't use Mythos or Fable now. Any non-citizen querying Fable from, say, an apartment in San Francisco is barred exactly as if they were in Shanghai - and that population includes a meaningful share of Anthropic's own workforce, since frontier labs run heavily on foreign-born engineers. The company effectively had to lock some of its own staff out of the model it had just shipped. Dean Ball, an AI policy expert who briefly served in the current administration and has been sharply critical of its moves against the company, called the action "cartoonish" on X, pointing to the incoherence of an administration that wants to export advanced AI chips to China while moving to bar allied users, from Britain on down, from the best American models.

Tinfoil, anyone?

The national security order might be a godsend for Anthropic - which priced Fable at ten dollars per million input tokens and fifty per million output, double its Opus 4.8 flagship and, by its own description, less than half the price of Mythos Preview - the most expensive model it sells and a token-hungry one on long tasks. It was free on Pro, Max, Team, and Enterprise plans only from June 9 through June 22, with metered credits taking over after, and Anthropic was candid the staged rollout was about capacity, expecting demand "very high, and difficult to predict."

So this shutdown, triggered by Amazon (read below), and landing three days into a two-week giveaway conveniently capped an expensive subsidy that after we're guessing most users switched to the thirsty model.

How Three Days Unspooled

Fable 5 launched on June 9 as the first broadly available "Mythos-class" model, the public-facing version of a system Anthropic had previously kept behind a vetted-access wall because of its cyber and biological capabilities. Mythos 5, the same underlying model with some safeguards removed, stayed reserved for cleared cybersecurity partners. Fable 5 was the middle path: Mythos-grade capability, Anthropic said, with guardrails strong enough for general release. The company put it on the API, made it generally available on Amazon Bedrock and GitHub Copilot, and folded it into Pro, Max, Team, and Enterprise plans at no extra charge through June 22.

The imminent “Anthropic - White House” ceasefire is the new imminent “Iran-US” ceasefire https://t.co/byCO9mLo2h

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 14, 2026

The launch was rocky before Washington entered. Researchers complained the safeguards were overbroad and that ordinary technical work was being downgraded. A sharper backlash hit over what users called a "silent fallback," a mechanism that quietly rerouted certain high-risk queries to the older Opus 4.8 without telling the user. Anthropic reversed it, apologized, and said flagged requests would be made visible. Then, on June 10, a well-known jailbreaker who posts as Pliny the Liberator published what he claimed was a working bypass of Fable's safety systems, complete with lurid outputs spanning cyber exploits and chemical synthesis. It gave the controversy a public face, though it is worth noting it was not the finding the government ultimately cited. Anthropic has never confirmed which jailbreak triggered the order, the viral Pliny post or the private report described below.

🚨 JAILBREAK ALERT 🚨

ANTHROPIC: PWNED 🫡
FABLE-5: LIBERATED 🦋

let's start with the 🐘...

the consensus seems to be that this has been one of the most disappointing model drops of all time, effectively preventing legitimate researchers from contributing their talents to our… pic.twitter.com/Z0vdPIt4vY

— Pliny the Liberator 🐉󠅫󠄼󠄿󠅆󠄵󠄐󠅀󠄼󠄹󠄾󠅉󠅭 (@elder_plinius) June 10, 2026

Anthropic says it received a Friday evening call giving it roughly ninety minutes to take the models down over a national-security threat, with no specifics attached. The Lutnick letter followed that afternoon. By late evening, users had lost access, and Anthropic posted its statement calling the situation a misunderstanding. The next day, David Sacks and Pete Hegseth offered the administration's version in public. As of this writing, the models are still offline.

The Trigger Was Amazon

The finding that set this off appears to have come not from an anonymous internet jailbreak but from Amazon, which is to say from Anthropic's single largest investor.

According to the Wall Street Journal, corroborated by The Information and Reuters, Amazon researchers found a way to prompt Fable 5 into surfacing information useful for cyberattacks, and Amazon chief executive Andy Jassy raised the concern directly with senior officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The company's report reportedly showed Fable surfacing security bugs in at least four software programs when fed a specific set of queries, and National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross and Lutnick were both in the conversations. Sacks, in his thread, described the source only as a "highly credible trusted partner." Amazon has declined to detail the research, telling reporters it is "not uncommon for governments to seek our counsel" on security risks and that it does not discuss the substance of those talks. AWS, which hosted Fable 5 through Bedrock, later confirmed Anthropic had asked it to revoke access for all users in all regions. Amazon was not alone in raising flags, either: at least five other companies submitted warnings in the same window.

What's interesting is that Amazon is Anthropic's largest backer - with a cumulative stake of roughly $13 billion and a $100 billion AWS spending commitment running the other way, plus a board seat, the cloud that serves the models, and a Trainium chip relationship. One of the companies most thoroughly entangled with Anthropic's business helped prompt a government action that knocked Anthropic's flagship launch offline eleven days after the company filed confidentially for an IPO. There may be an entirely straightforward explanation, that Amazon spotted a real risk and escalated it through the proper channel.

Was Amazon concerned about being legally responsible for jailbroken Fable hackings? 

By Anthropic's account, the government supplied only verbal evidence of a narrow, non-universal bypass that amounted to asking the model to read a codebase and flag software bugs - with the same result obtainable from other public models including OpenAI's GPT-5.5. The company argues a narrow jailbreak cannot justify "recalling a commercial model deployed to hundreds of millions of people," and that applying that standard industry-wide would "halt all new model deployments." It is a first-party account from a company that wants its product back online, but it is the more detailed of the two, and Anthropic notes that thousands of hours of pre-launch red-teaming by the U.S. government, the U.K. AI Security Institute, and outside groups found no universal jailbreak.

It is also corroborated by the only named expert who has read the underlying report. Katie Moussouris, the Luta Security chief executive who built Microsoft's bug-bounty program and helped design the Pentagon's first, reviewed the Amazon findings at Anthropic's request and told the Journal and Fortune it was "not a jailbreak" but "Defense Oriented Prompting (DOP), capabilities defenders need," adding that if national defense was the goal the response "just scored an own goal against us." Chris McGuire of the Council on Foreign Relations, no reflexive critic, called the across-the-board restriction "highly questionable."

The administration's case runs the other way, and it runs on Anthropic's own rhetoric. Sacks, who co-chairs the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and previously served as the White House AI and crypto czar, says a trusted partner found a working jailbreak and that the administration asked CEO Dario Amodei to fix it or pull the model. "Dario allegedly refused."

Sacks points out that Anthropic spent months calling Mythos-class models a more dangerous category needing oversight; Fable is Mythos with guardrails - so a bypass exposes "operability of a cyber weapon" to people who should not have it. His bottom line: "the ball is in Anthropic's court."

I’ve had a number of conversations with folks inside and outside government about the current situation with Anthropic, and here is what I believe to be true:

— As we know, Anthropic publicly released its Mythos class models earlier this week under the commercial name Fable.…

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) June 13, 2026

Meanwhile, a more alarming claim, that the trigger involved access from China, rests on a single Semafor source and is disputed by Anthropic, which says the issue was never raised and that it blocks access from inside China. Treasury, Commerce, and the Bureau of Industry and Security have not put a technical case on the record. Anthropic wants its model live and its safety brand intact; the White House wants to look alert rather than asleep as AI starts touching cyber operations. Nobody has shown the proof.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth posted a "Told ya so" - writing "Three months ago, @DeptofWar kicked @AnthropicAI out of our building—forever ... Every passing day proves why that was the right move." 

Three months ago, @DeptofWar kicked @AnthropicAI out of our building—forever.

Every passing day proves why that was the right move. 🇺🇸

— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) June 13, 2026

Sacks has explicitly denied the Fable action is retaliation, and there is no public evidence that it is. But the prior friction is real, and the administration's own messaging keeps blurring the line between a technical enforcement action and a broader fight over who sets the terms for AI in national security.

Precedent-Setting

For the rest of the industry, the precedent is the point: a frontier model can be launched, praised, and pulled from global availability inside a week, by emergency directive, for reasons its provider cannot fully see. Reporting suggests the administration is treating this as Anthropic-specific for now, but even a one-company action pushes every lab toward pre-clearing high-capability releases. That direction is not hypothetical; Trump signed an executive order this month directing agencies to establish a voluntary mechanism for the government to get early access to powerful models before deployment. The Fable order is what the involuntary version looks like.

Enterprises are reading it as a resilience warning, with analysts urging multi-provider routing, local fallback, and a harder look at open-weight models - exactly the immunity Chinese open-source labs are now marketing. For U.S. allies the lesson is sharper, because the order cut off allied users too, sweeping European, Canadian, and Indian customers into the same blackout. The European Commission said emergency measures should not discriminate against partners; French officials reached for the language of technological sovereignty. The subtext, that AI infrastructure controlled in Washington can be switched off in Washington, is now being said aloud.

Then there's the paradox Anthropic helped build - long arguing that governments should be able to block unsafe deployments, distinguishing itself from rivals who oppose binding rules. This is what that looks like when the process is not the "transparent, fair, clear, and grounded in technical facts" one it envisioned but an emergency directive with no public record. Its objection is not that no model should ever be stopped, but that this is the wrong way to stop one - a harder argument for a company that spent years naming the danger and marketing the restraint.

The imminent “Anthropic - White House” ceasefire is the new imminent “Iran-US” ceasefire https://t.co/byCO9mLo2h

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 14, 2026

 

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 16:55

Steven Spielberg Believes That Disclosure Day Will Greatly Shake The Faith Of Christians All Over The Globe

Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

Would undeniable evidence of alien life cause large numbers of people to abandon what they believe about God? Disclosure Day comes out in theaters this weekend, and that appears to be one of the biggest questions that this film is driving at. Much of the global population has always operated under the assumption that the only intelligent life that exists in the universe is on this planet. So how would the world respond to very clear evidence that proves once and for all that we are not alone?

Steven Spielberg is the creative force behind Disclosure Day, and he is making it abundantly clear what he believes.

During a shocking interview with CBS News, he openly stated that he believes that aliens “have been here, and they are here”…

Half a century after Steven Spielberg challenged audiences to think about what lies beyond the starry canopy that defines our universe in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, the director is again challenging accepted precepts of faith and singular belief in a supreme being.

His new film Disclosure Day sees him revisit the possibility of aliens: “I absolutely think that they have been here, and they are here,” he outlined in an interview with CBS News.

Wow.

Spielberg is actually convinced that aliens are here on Earth right now.

And during a different interview with USA Today, he expressed his view that there is “overwhelming” evidence that aliens exist…

When I made “Close Encounters,” I needed a lot of imagination. I believed there was other life out there, although I wasn’t quite sure if it had come here. I was really curious about UFOs and UAPs. I said, “I’m not going to call ‘Close Encounters’ science fiction – I’m going to call it science speculation.” But since the beginning of the 21st century, there’s been more and more access to the actual visual truth. We’re able to confirm our belief by showing what we shot on our devices to other people. It’s just become overwhelming to me that we’re not alone in the universe.

Disclosure Day makes it clear that Spielberg does not consider the fact that we are not alone to be a bad thing.

In fact, it appears that he is trying to get those that watch the movie to be open to whatever the “aliens” may want to teach us.

In my opinion, that is what makes this film so dangerous.

The idea is that once the “aliens” show up we should discard what we have always believed and just accept whatever new reality they have to offer.

Of course Spielberg also acknowledges that this would be very difficult for many of us.

Spielberg is convinced that if the government fully revealed everything about alien life that they have been keeping from us, it would “mess up a lot of people”…

“There’s a faction in the film that represents a pretty good position of why — possibly because of ontological shock, social dislocation — if this truth… were just known overnight, if the government announced, ‘Yes, we have been keeping this from you since 1947,’ that would mess up a lot of people.”

So exactly who are the “people” that Spielberg is referring to?

At one point in his interview with CBS News, Spielberg suggested that undeniable evidence of alien life would greatly shake the theological beliefs of those that believe in God…

During a CBS News interview, Spielberg reflected on how confirmation of intelligent life beyond Earth could affect religious faith, saying, ‘The movie also takes the position of the church.

‘What does this do to the fundamental beliefs that many of us have? Is God our God only on this planet? Or is God a god for every system where there’s civilization and intelligent life, and even developing life?’

The Oscar-winning filmmaker argued that proof of alien life would force many believers to confront difficult questions about God’s role in a universe that may be filled with other intelligent civilizations.

Obviously this is something that has been on his mind for a long time.

If you have not seen Spielberg’s full interview with CBS News yet, I would highly recommend checking it out, because it is very revealing…

Because it has so much hype, I think that Disclosure Day will be one of the biggest movies of the year.

Over time, billions of people could end up watching this film.

Just think about that for a moment.

All over the world, people will have their opinions about extraterrestrial life shaped by Spielberg, and that is extremely alarming.

One character in Disclosure Day actually suggests that when the “aliens” finally show up, people will “stop believing in God” and will instead accept the “aliens” as “deities”…

Would the discovery of alien life really be faith-shattering? One character in Disclosure Day (a former novitiate nun played by Bono’s daughter Eve Hewson) argues, “People will see [aliens] as deities. They’ll stop believing in God.”

For decades, movies, television shows, books and video games have been priming us to believe that someday the “aliens” will finally make their grand appearance.

And when that happens, much of the global population will accept whatever they have to say hook, line and sinker.

But true Christians will not have their faith shaken by Disclosure Day, nor will they have their faith shaken even if “aliens” suddenly show up in large numbers in the skies above this planet.

From the very beginning to the very end, the Bible openly acknowledges that we are not alone in the universe.

In fact, the Bible has a great deal to say about angels, fallen angels, demons and a whole host of other non-human entities.

And the final book of the Bible is far wilder than any science fiction movie that Hollywood has ever put out.

Yes, very strange creatures will someday invade our planet. You can read all about it in Revelation chapter 9.

I have been writing about all of this stuff for well over a decade, because I want the world to understand what is going to happen in advance.

Once you understand what is going to happen, your faith will never be shaken by a Steven Spielberg film.

On social media, some Christians are making this point quite eloquently…

One user posted on X in response to the director’s statements, saying: ‘I can promise you it won’t. Not even for a second.’ While another shared: ‘The Alien Psyop will definitely make people question their faith lol.’

An X user posted: ‘We’ve had 70 years of sci-fi movies with aliens. I think Christians will survive this movie with their faith intact.’

Steven Spielberg seems to think that the fact that we are not alone is some sort of grand discovery.

But the reality of the matter is that the Bible has been telling us this for thousands of years.

We were never alone.

So don’t buy into the Hollywood propaganda.

We are being set up for a deception of epic proportions, but those that hold on to the truth will be able to see right through it.

Michael’s new book entitled “10 Prophetic Events That Are Coming Next” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 16:20

"Greatest Show On Earth": White House Hosts UFC Freedom 250 Fights

America’s semiquincentennial birthday celebration kicks into gear today with the Ultimate Fighting Championship’s (UFC) Freedom 250 fights, with seven matches scheduled for the South Lawn of the White House.

“This will be the greatest show on earth,” President Donald Trump said while previewing the stage in May.

“I think it’s going to be the biggest event we’ve ever had at the White House.”

As Travis Gillmore reports for The Epoch Times, the spectacle falls on Flag Day as well as Trump’s 80th birthday.

Organizers constructed a 60-foot-tall structure known as the “claw,” with matches occurring in the sport’s familiar, octagon-shaped arena on the front yard of the Executive Mansion.

The main event, a lightweight title unification bout, features undefeated UFC lightweight title holder Ilia “El Matador” Topuria, 29, facing off against 37-year-old interim lightweight champion Justin “The Highlight” Gaethje, both weighing in at 155 pounds. Topuria, known for elite techniques and knockout strength, is heavily favored, though the U.S.-born Gaethje is a mainstay in the sport, with high-level fighting intelligence and durability.

Second on the card, listed as a co-main event, is an interim heavyweight bout between 251-pound Alex Pereira, 38, and 248-pound Ciryl Gane, 36.

Known as “Poatan,” Pereira is looking to become the sport’s first three-division champion, having previously captured the middleweight and light heavyweight titles.

Media preview of the UFC setup of the upcoming UFC Freedom Fight on June 14, on the South Lawn of the White House on June 11, 2026. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

France’s Gane, nicknamed “Bon Gamin,” a former interim champion, is quick on his feet and known for his range. The match is evenly stacked, according to oddsmakers.

Winners of the title bouts will receive red, white, and blue patriotic-themed belts, adorned with “1776–2026,” 250 stars, approximately 60 carats of diamonds, and an engraving of the scene at the White House.

Fan favorite “Suga” Sean O’Malley is expected to bring his trademark personality to the ring when he takes on Aiemann Zahabi for the bantamweight match, with both fighters coming within a half-pound of each other at weigh-in. O’Malley’s quick striking gives him the edge, while Zahabi comes into the match with a seven-fight win streak.

An undefeated new prospect weighing 231 pounds, Josh Hokit, with nine straight victories, will challenge 265-pound Derrick “The Black Beast” Lewis in the night’s heavyweight fight. Hokit brings youthful energy to the ring, while Lewis is known as an elite, lights-out puncher.

Brazilian lightweight Mauricio Ruffy takes on veteran Michael Chandler in a bout where Ruffy is favored, but Chandler’s wrestling skills and bursts of energy will be on display.

Bo Nickal is expected to prevail over Kyle Daukaus in a middleweight battle between the two 186-pounders, while a featherweight match between Diego Lopes and Steve Garcia is set to open the night.

UFC organizers hosted a ceremonial weigh-in Saturday in Washington in preparation for the mixed martial arts fights.

Dana White, UFC president and CEO, oversaw the programming, while podcaster and long-time UFC commentator Joe Rogan emceed the event.

White hoisted one of the red, white, and blue patriotic themed belts created for the two title fights, adorned with “1776–2026,” 250 stars, approximately 60 carats of diamonds, and an engraving of the scene at the White House.

Thousands of fans crowded the Ellipse near the Executive Mansion to witness the festivities.

Military skydivers performed aerial stunts to kick iff the evening, flying a huge American flag down to the crowd before a bald eagle soared over the audience.

The 14 fighters were officially weighed in earlier in the morning, and all the competitors made their respective weight to qualify for the seven-match card.

UFC lightweight champion Ilia Topuria and interim lightweight champion Justin Gaethje both came in at 155 pounds ahead of their fight in the main event on Sunday, a lightweight title unification match.

The co-main event, an interim heavyweight title bout, will feature 251-pound Alex Pereira against 248-pound Ciryl Gane.

Sean O’Malley weighed in at 135.5 pounds, and Aiemann Zahabi came in at 135 pounds ahead of their bantamweight match.

Heavyweights Josh Hokit and Derrick Lewis will fight at 231 pounds and 265 pounds, respectively.

Mauricio Ruffy weighed 155 pounds, and Michael Chandler totaled 156 pounds, before the two go head-to-head in a lightweight match.

Middleweights Bo Nickal and Kyle Daukaus will fight at 186 pounds apiece, while featherweights Diego Lopes and Steve Garcia both weighed in at 146 pounds.

Tensions ran high as the athletes faced off in front of the crowd.

Similar antics were on display June 12 during the pre-fight press conference at the Lincoln Memorial.

Thousands of military members and special guests will sit ringside, while the Ellipse near the White House is set up to hold an overflow crowd of approximately 100,000.

Gates open at 3:30 p.m. ET Sunday for the main event and Fan Fest watch party, which includes a replica octagon, interactive entertainment, live music, merchandise booths, live shows and appearances, meet-and-greets with UFC athletes, fireworks, and more.

The Zac Brown Band headlined Saturday night, with more musical acts featured along with motocross stunts by Travis Pastrana.

Officials with the UFC promoted the fights as the “most historic sporting event of all time,” with festivities coinciding with the nation’s founders signing the Declaration of Independence.

“UFC Freedom 250 commemorates the 250th birthday of the United States with a once-in-a-generation celebration of the American fighting spirit,” the organization said in a statement.

“From the revolution to the octagon, this historic event will connect fans through cinematic storytelling and unrivaled competition on the world’s greatest proving ground.”

People around the world can watch the fights live on Paramount+ beginning at 8 p.m. ET.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 15:45

Ethereum Can Quantum-Proof Accounts For Just 7 Cents, Says Foundation's Kohaku Project Lead

Authored by Zoltan Verdai via CoinTelegraph.com,

Ethereum could begin adding post-quantum protections to accounts for as little as $0.07, without waiting for a hard fork, according to the Ethereum Foundation's Kohaku project lead Nicolas Consigny.

In a Saturday X post, Consigny shared a paper proposing a cheaper way for Ethereum users to protect their accounts against future quantum-computing threats. The approach adapts SPHINCS+, a post-quantum signature standard developed by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology, to work more efficiently on Ethereum.

Dubbed “SPHINCS-,” the proposal aims to reduce onchain verification costs without requiring a protocol change or precompile. Consigny described SPHINCS- as a bridge toward a future post-quantum signature system dubbed “leanSPHINCS,” which aims to further reduce verification costs through aggregation.

The proposal seeks to address the long-term risk of a quantum threat to Ethereum's Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm with a cost-efficient solution that may be deployed before a dedicated hard fork is developed.

Signature scheme SPHINCs variant security degradation and onchain verification costs. Source: Ethresearch.ch

Future quantum computing threats stirs crypto community

In April, post-quantum startup Project Eleven awarded a prize to researcher Giancarlo Lelli for using a quantum computer to break a 15-bit elliptic-curve key.

Bitcoin’s keys are 256 bits long, significantly larger than the 15-bit key Lelli managed to crack. He derived the private key from a public key paired to it, using a variant of Shor’s algorithm, a quantum computing technique that theoretically poses a threat to the type of cryptography used by Bitcoin.

According to Glassnode, about 1.92 million Bitcoin, representing nearly 10% of the total supply, are considered “structurally unsafe” in a future quantum attack scenario. Another 4.12 million BTC, or 20.6% of the supply, are classified as “operationally unsafe” due to key or address management practices.

Source: Glassnode

The analytics company estimates that the remaining 69.8% of the supply, or 13.99 million Bitcoin, remains unexposed to a quantum computing threat, broadly in line with Ark Invest’s March estimate that 65% of the supply was safe. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 15:10

Space: The Now Frontier And The AI Revolution

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Space: The Now Frontier & The AI Revolution

Academy will tackle any details on a deal with Iran via a SITREP and a podcast, once (if) details are made  available. 

After last Friday’s extreme move (More Than Rates Moving Markets) we had a relatively tame week with the S&P and Nasdaq both gaining around 0.7%, but neither getting back to their highs of the week, set on Tuesday. Yields drifted moderately lower on the week, primarily on the back of steep declines in the price of oil (though I do feel the need to point out the Jan 2027 WTI contract, which I’ve been focusing on, is still at $76.1, barely one dollar lower than where it closed last Friday – I remain in the higher for longer camp). Credit spreads remain firm and the asset class remains “boring” which is a good thing! 

Now let’s address two bigger picture issues that have been taking up a lot of time during recent client calls and visits. Space and AI. 

Space: The Now Frontier 

Space: The Final Frontier still gives me the chills! The excitement of exploration! The IPO of SpaceX and all the discussion it has created has brought back that feeling. 

A colony of 1 million people on Mars! I love the concept! I have 0 opinion on whether the number of shares that Musk gets for achieving that target is the right number, but I love having that concept out there. 

Think big:! This concept floating around, and now documented into Wall Street, excites me. On the back of Artemis II and the planned lunar landings, there is a lot of potential for new discoveries. 

On a more practical (or near-term outlook) it can lead to AI and Data Centers in space. New sources of energy and potentially other materials. 

But there are also important National Security elements that are gaining more attention. 

Many members of Academy’s Geopolitical Intelligence Group lament that we have been “soft” on space. That we have ignored the real dangers to national security by not focusing on space as much as we need to. While the Space Force was a step in the right direction, many argue that we are behind (some might argue woefully behind) where we should be in terms of ensuring that space is safe and our interests are protected! 

At the simple and on the not controversial end of the spectrum, is “space junk.” The debris in orbit is increasing. While not currently posing a risk, it is something that should be addressed better than it has been. 

What about GPS and communications? I’m not sure that I could walk to the corner store without using some map app. The working assumption that “no one is interested in disrupting GPS” may be naïve? While at least 95% of communication remains “terrestrial” (fiber optic cables, undersea cables, cell towers, etc.) space will become increasingly important to communications. While it might not be “mission critical” to protect the communications equipment in space today, it could be.

Who will control discoveries? 

Let’s say we find some vital resources on the moon (seems the most likely “surprise” that could occur in the near future). Who will control that material? 

• At best, the discoverer and those with the capabilities to take advantage of such material.  
• At worst, might is right. 

We expect this administration, and future administrations, will spend more on space to support National Security. This is a bipartisan issue as we think about the myriad of possibilities for space. Not just the good and altruistic possibilities, but also about the risk that some other country doesn’t share such a cooperative spirit about the future of space. 

This is by no means, “closing the barn door after the horses have run out,” but it is something that deserves more serious attention and money going forward.  

The national security elements are in addition to the commercial opportunities that will be funded as corporations rush to harness the potential! 

If waking up to a $2.1 trillion market cap (and the first trillionaire) doesn’t motivate entrepreneurial and capitalistic spirits, then I should just give up this job, because it would go against everything I understand about capitalism! 

Space may be the “final frontier” but it is also the “now” frontier, which is incredibly exciting! 

The AI Revolution 

Let’s get the hard part over, and start with this image: 

This image is meant to grab your attention, if not create some shock value. Yes, I used AI (ChatGPT in this case) to create an image of modern-day workers storming a data center like villagers in the old days. It isn’t perfect, but it is about a zillion times better than I could do on my own. 

My current thinking on AI: 

• It is crucial to have the lead in this technology from a National Security standpoint.
  • Maybe I’m falling into a trap where everything looks like a nail, when you only have a hammer, as I spend so much time with the Geopolitical Intelligence Group, but I do believe that the AI Race and the Data Race are real and it is crucial to stay ahead in these races. I cannot tell whether it is one race or two races that are similar, but that doesn’t really make a difference, so we will ignore that technicality for now. 
• We are all trying to implement AI into our routines, with varying amounts of success. 
  • “Traditional” search (if you can call something that didn’t exist when I was born, “traditional”) has been almost fully taken over by AI. No longer are we just getting pointed to links and websites as search results. We now get the answers we presumably would have gotten by going to those links up front. 
  • Sometimes we are “shocked” by the results of AI. 
    • Sometimes those “shocks” are good – like the image delivered above. 
    • Sometimes those “shocks” raise eyebrows – like how could it make up a ticker?  Or not find the current version of what we were trying to solve. Ending up in a level of frustration over the need to correct some “slop” after spending money to generate that “slop” in the first place. At the back of your mind, you cannot help but wonder what you might have missed, in prior instances of using AI.
  • I think a lot about the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect (the ad that popped up for me on this link was for ShipSticks - got to give the ad agencies some credit for that). 
• We have moved beyond “generic” questions about AI and into wanting real world examples and case studies. 
  • We are in the phase of trying to figure out “if it is worth it.” Not just figuring out how much time we saved (after applying our own touches) but we are also considering what we didn’t learn by going down the AI path. 
  • With the prices rising for usage, it is becoming easier to think about AI in a “traditional” cost versus benefit framework. Presumably (based on market valuations), AI is going to look very cheap. 

If my current thinking is generally positive on AI and I truly believe it is crucial for security, then why show a picture depicting the AI Revolution as people storming a data center? 

• Anthropic Disables Mythos 5 and Fable 5. This was done to comply with the U.S. government’s demands. National Security front and center. I will admit, there is a part of me that thinks this might be the best “velvet rope” marketing campaign ever. It is so powerful that you can’t use it, just makes people want to use it. But it is only a part of me that thinks that. The larger and less juvenile side of me thinks there are real security risks being unleashed.
  • It is difficult to undo discoveries. Now that everyone knows that this sort of AI has been developed, people will try to replicate it. How long before someone else has this tech and uses it against us (or you or me). We are going to have to ramp up our National Security Policy around data, chips, and AI at lightning speed! 
  • There will be (and there already is) an element of I Told You So. Those who don’t want AI to succeed will use this to try to slow the development of AI. Again, just because we slow down and add stricter guardrails doesn’t mean those who want to do us harm would follow suit (they wouldn’t, they would just smile at the opportunity being given to them). 
• Remember the “viral” report on potential job losses from AI? Wall Street may have moved on, but not everyone in the country has forgotten about the fear it stoked in them (primarily around their own jobs and careers). While our Are We The Horses? in the buggy whip story hasn’t gone viral, it has gotten some attention. Lisa Abramowicz asked me about it during my interview last week and has mentioned it several times. I recently came across another report also asking those questions. Fear of job loss is real. 
  • Add in robotics, and job loss fears mount even higher.
• Electricity costs. People don’t love the looks of data centers (one friend pointed out recently, that while driving at 79 mph, it took 3 minutes to drive by a data center construction site). Water issues are there too, but for now it is the electricity consumption that bothers/scares people the most.

Electricity CPI: new record high pic.twitter.com/EBFCAxDXk4

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 10, 2026

The biggest risk I see to the AI industry in the U.S. is that a political movement captures the angst surrounding the business and uses that sentiment to win elections and slow or even derail AI in the country. 

We are not there yet, but the industry has to focus on heading this risk off at the pass. 

• We’ve seen a “softer” tone out of some AI executives, particularly trying to flip the narrative to job creation from AI rather than job losses. 
• The companies developing the AI and Data Centers are doing a much better job on the electricity side of things and will continue to do that. 
• While it is probably important to lobby in D.C., I think it is equally important (and possibly more important) to maintain/win in the court of public opinion. 

My picture is unlikely to gain traction (no one uses torches anyways), but that sentiment is bubbling just below the surface and I think tackling it head on is one thing that AI needs to do. The national security focus helps, but is not in itself enough. 

Bottom Line 

I think I need to watch some Star Trek episodes on upcoming flights.I am very excited about space and think that sentiment is widely held. I am largely excited about AI but think there is a real risk of political backlash if the industry lets fears seep into the populace at large and some politicians harness that fear. 

Hopefully, we have details on Iran and they are good and we can move on from that topic.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 14:00

UK Intercepts 'Russian Shadow' Fleet Vessel in Unprecedented English Channel Commando Boarding

British Royal Marine Commandos conducted a high-stakes midnight raid in the English Channel on Sunday, boarding and seizing a sanctioned Russian "shadow fleet" oil tanker.

The elite UK forces conducted a fast-roping raid onto the massive crude carrier in the dead of night and into the morning daylight hours. While there's nothing new in terms of an 'illicit' Russian tanker seizure in European waters, it is rare or even unprecedented that such an action occurred in the English Channel, so close to Britain's shores.

UK military image: the Smyrtos boarding

According to the UK Ministry of Defense, it was a  six-hour operation and a massive display of force involving a flotilla of navy vessels - including the frigate HMS Sutherland - and a fleet of aircraft, most notably heavy-lift Chinook helicopters.

The target has since been identified as the Smyros - a vessel allegedly flying under the radar in an effort to bypass Western embargoes.

According to the MoD statement, it was indeed a significant first:

"In the first U.K.-led operation of its kind, the vessel SMYRTOS was boarded by Royal Marine Commandos and specially trained law enforcement officers from the National Crime Agency, despite Russia's best efforts to evade sanctions and continue fueling its barbaric war with Ukraine."

France has been involved in several of these interdictions and boardings, but not yet the UK, until now. The captured vessel now being escorted to an anchorage off the south coast of England, where it will remain under heavy guard and surveillance.

The UK defense ministry in follow-up sated that "Russia relies on its shadow fleet to fund their conflict in Ukraine and our interdiction delivers a blow to Putin's illegal war." The statement added that this was done in "close coordination" with French authorities.

Russian "shadow fleet" methods have relied on constantly switching registries and disabling AIS transponders to avoid tracking.

The last several seized tankers - done by France which is up to four captures at this point - were flying flags of African nations, and these interdictions have stretched back through last year. 

Watch: Royal Marine Commandos board the sanctioned Russian shadow fleet tanker SMYRTOS in the Channel, in the first UK-led operation of its kind, backed by HMS Sutherland, HMS Ledbury and an RAF P-8. The vessel is now held off the south coast as investigations continue. pic.twitter.com/omTnGlh3gk

— UK Defence Journal (@UKDefJournal) June 14, 2026

In some instances, Russia has been sending military escorts - which of course has seen French and European militaries hold off executing any action. But unprotected ones are clearly exposed, and European militaries can taken action on these at will.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 13:25

Gonorrhea Rates Are Soaring In NYC: Mamdani Rushes Free Chocolate Condoms To Citizens Of Big Apple!

Authored by Eric Utter via American Thinker,

So what's the priority of New York City's Mamdani administration these days?

FrontPage Magazine reported:

Gonorrhea rates in New York City have more than doubled in a decade and syphilis is ‘surging’ statewide. Mamdani’s Department of Health has responded to this crisis by rushing a free supply of lubricant and chocolate flavored condoms.

Beam me up, Scotty.

FPM quoted NYC Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services Helen Arteaga as stating,

“Providing high-quality sexual and reproductive healthcare services is a priority for the Mamdani Administration. Making safer sex products more accessible to the most affected and vulnerable communities is a critical public health need.”

Well, it’s good to have priorities. But are chocolate-flavored condoms safer than regular old garden-variety ones? I’m guessing not, but I couldn’t tell you from experience.

FPM again:

Councilwoman Pierina Sanchez, a Mamdani ally, explained that the free chocolate flavored condoms were necessary because "inequities persist among women, low-income households, and Black and Latino New Yorkers.

Women, low-income households, and black and Latino New Yorkers are adversely and disproportionately affected by a relative dearth of chocolate-flavored condoms? Is New York a den of iniquity inequity?

Unfortunately for virtue-signaling do-gooders, the free chocolaty condoms are coming from Karex, a Malaysian company that is apparently the largest manufacturer of condoms on Earth.

Why is this unfortunate?

According to The Telegraph, some Karex workers said they are put up in cramped and undignified conditions, with as many as a dozen housed in damp and unhygienic dormitories.

Workers at one site are allegedly granted just half of a steel bunkbed, with no mattress — and only have access to a filthy, broken toilet. And for these “amenities,” about 12 dollars a month is deducted from their wages. The Telegraph reported that one Karex employee said “sometimes poisonous snakes come in” to the dorms.

Not sure if that’s a blessing or a curse.

“Forget the crime! Forget the fact that the city is broke! Chocolate condoms for everybody!” does not seem like a winning slogan for Mamdani … but what do I know?

Ask not what you can do for the city, ask what Mayor Mamdani can do to — I mean for -- you!”

I’m sure someone in the Mamdani administration will tout the mayor’s actions thusly: “These delectable prophylactics will be generously distributed, free of cost, to all genders with a penis … and to all those that love them! Mayor Mamdani is hard at work to make your lives better!”

Considering the shape the city is in, this may be the biggest cover up in the history of the Big Apple.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 12:50

America's Energy Future Is Being Decided In Obscure Utility Commission Races

Authored by Elizabeth Gianini via RealClearEnergy,

Most Americans could not name a single member of their state Public Service or Utility Commission (PSC/PUC).

Radical climate activists are counting on that.

Across the country, radical climate activists and left-wing environmental organizations are pouring millions of dollars into obscure utility commission races because they understand something many voters do not: these commissions increasingly influence the future of America's electric grid.

These regulatory bodies decide how electricity is generated, how transmission infrastructure is built, how quickly power plants retire, how new resources are integrated into the grid, and ultimately how much Americans pay for electricity and whether the lights stay on when the system is under stress.

In Georgia, radical climate activists invested heavily in the 2025 PSC races, helping defeat Republican commissioners who supported an all-of-the-above energy strategy. In Arizona, activist-backed candidates won utility elections while advocating accelerated retirements of dispatchable generation. Similar efforts are already emerging in other states.

These organizations understand that utility commissioners play a critical role in shaping energy infrastructure, reliability, and investment decisions within the legal and regulatory frameworks established by their states. As national energy debates have become increasingly difficult to win in Washington, radical left-wing environmental activists have turned their attention to state-level regulatory races where those decisions are often debated and implemented.

What makes this debate so misleading is that activists frame it as a choice between renewable energy and the dispatchable generation still required to keep the grid reliable, affordable, and resilient.

It is not.

Most Republican PSC and PUC commissioners support an all-of-the-above energy strategy. They recognize that meeting America's growing energy needs while maintaining reliability and resilience will require contributions from virtually every available energy source.

What they reject is the fantasy that America can rapidly phase out dispatchable generation before replacement technologies are capable of providing the same level of reliability, resilience, and affordability.

Many radical climate activists have shifted their messaging from climate targets to affordability. Affordable electricity means very little if policymakers sacrifice reliability in pursuit of political timelines.

No major industrial economy has demonstrated that a heavily renewable-dependent electric system can operate at scale with consistent reliability and affordable consumer costs without substantial dispatchable backup generation.

At the same time, electricity demand is surging. Artificial intelligence, data centers, domestic manufacturing, and electrification are creating the largest increase in power demand America has seen in decades.

The Trump Administration's Ratepayer Protection Pledge reflects a simple principle: large AI and data-center customers should bear their fair share of the generation, transmission, and infrastructure costs associated with their growth rather than shifting those costs onto families, small businesses, and existing ratepayers.

America's electric grid was already facing enormous modernization requirements. Transmission systems are aging. Generation fleets are evolving.

AI is accelerating the urgency of these investments. It did not create the underlying challenge.

Utilities are expected to spend approximately $1.4 trillion over the next five years modernizing the electric grid, replacing aging infrastructure, hardening systems against extreme weather, and expanding capacity.

Recent Department of Energy actions to preserve dispatchable generation reflect a growing recognition that reliability and resilience must remain central considerations in America's energy transition. The challenge is not simply building new resources. It is ensuring the electric system remains dependable during periods of peak demand, extreme weather, and other conditions that place stress on the grid.

The real challenge is not choosing between renewable and traditional energy. It is building a reliable, affordable, resilient, and scalable system capable of supporting long-term economic growth while withstanding major disruptions and restoring service quickly when Americans need power most.

Pretending otherwise may satisfy radical climate activists.

It will not keep electricity affordable.

It will not keep the lights on during hurricanes, polar freezes, or extreme heat events when millions of Americans depend on electricity not simply for convenience, but for safety and survival.

Recent victories in Georgia and Arizona have emboldened radical climate activists and their allies, who increasingly view state utility and regulatory commission races as some of the most important battlegrounds in American energy policy.

Republicans, business leaders, and ratepayers should start paying attention. The decisions made by these commissions will shape the affordability, reliability, resilience, and economic competitiveness of the American economy for decades to come.

Elizabeth Gianini is President of the Regulators RoundTable PAC.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 11:40

Trump Says New Israeli Attack On Beirut "Should Not Have Happened" - Also Warns Hezbollah "Let's Not Blow It"

Update(1140ET): President Trump on Truth Social has sought to brush back the Israeli Sunday strikes on Beirut's southern suburbs, saying this morning's attack "should not have happened" and given it was on "a special day when we are so close to a Peace Deal with Iran.

He emphasized, "We are very close to a Deal that will bring peace to the region, including to Lebanon, and all sides should stand down." 

Some apparent last minute further Trump-Bibi fireworks, reported by Fox's regional correspondent...

President Trump told Fox News he will ask Iran not to respond against Israeli strikes that targeted Hezbollah.

Trump says he asked Israeli PM Netanyahu "what the fu*k are you doing?"

The President believes a deal with Iran will be electronically signed in the next 2-3 hours. pic.twitter.com/t689DQWfOE

— Trey Yingst (@TreyYingst) June 14, 2026

He warned not just Israel against more attacks, but said Hezbollah must refrain, after the Iran-aligned Shia group sent more projectiles on northern Israel. "This could be the beginning of a long and beautiful peace" he said, and added "let's not blow it."

*  *  *

On Sunday the spokesman for the Iranian parliament's National Security Commission again warned against pursuing a deal with the United States without first restraining Israel. Iran has tried to force a 'red line' on Washington - essentially making clear that if it doesn't get Israel under control in Lebanon, it can kiss an Iran and Hormuz Strait reopening peace deal goodbye. 

"One must not fall into a calculation error. Even if you seek agreement or understanding, its path is disciplining the Zionist regime. If this rabid dog is not controlled the ink of an agreement not yet dry will bite our own foot," the influential Ebrahim Rezaei wrote on X.

The site of an Israeli air strike in Beirut's southern suburbs on Sunday, via AFP.

The warning came immediately on the heels of the Israeli military having hit Beirut hard on Sunday morning, with airstrikes on what the IDF called Hezbollah infrastructure, in response to recent attacks on northern Israel. 

Iranian officials have in turn repeated their threat that they could respond with military action.

Just as President Trump has been touting that a landmark Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) will be signed Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has thrown a possible big monkey wrench into things by stating that "Israel will not tolerate firing into its territory."

From Tehran's perspective, this could put a deal with Trump on hold, as it seeks to maintain its firm line that Lebanon peace must also be incorporated into a broader overall US-Iran peace.

This has proven elusive thus far, and the Iranians have long charged that Trump acts at the behest of Israeli interests - while the White House has in turn sought to make clear it makes decisions independently, and that Israel answers to Washington, and not the other way around.

Iran's response to the new Beirut bombings has been as expected, with the deputy commander of Iran's top joint military command Khatam al-Anbiya Central ‌Headquarters stating that Israel's assault on Beirut "will not go unanswered," according to state media

"The Zionists' crimes in the suburbs will not go unanswered," Mohammad Jafar Assadi was quoted as saying. And more importantly: 

Iran's top negotiator, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, said that Israel's assault on Beirut's southern suburbs showed that the US "either lacks the will to fulfill its commitments or the ability to do so".

"If you lack the will and ability to fulfill your commitments, speaking of continuing the path is not possible," he added. 

Lebanon's civil defense agency has indicated that the new attacks on Beirut's southern suburbs killed at least three people. "The bodies of three martyrs were recovered from under the rubble and six wounded," the agency announced in a statement.

❗️BREAKING: Israel carried out attacks on Beirut’s suburbs pic.twitter.com/M8pkglo0qZ

— Arya Yadeghaar (Backup) (@AryJeayBackup) June 14, 2026

Again, Israel is saying this was necessary out of self-defense. The IDF "just carried out strikes in the Dahiyeh district of Beirut against terrorist targets belonging to the Hezbollah terrorist organisation, in response to Hezbollah's firing toward Israeli territory," it said. But certainly Tehran will voice vehement disagreement with this version of events.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 11:40

Swiss Voters Reject Proposal To Cap Population At 10 Million

Summary:

• Swiss Voters Reject Population Cap of Ten Million Propsal 

• The initiative "No 10 Million Switzerland" (population cap of 10 million) is being voted on by the Swiss and is likely to be rejected at the ballot box

• New Projection by research institute GFS Bern, commissioned by SRG SSR, 1 pm local time

Final Vote

In a national vote, Swiss voters rejected the proposed 10-million-person cap, with 54% voting against the measure and 46% backing the initiative.

Public broadcaster SRF wrote:

Some had expected a close vote on the "No 10-Million-Switzerland" initiative. But shortly after noon – with the first projection showing 55 percent voting against – it became increasingly clear: the initiative would not find a majority among the Swiss electorate.

The relief among the broad political opposition was correspondingly great. The Social Democratic Party (SP) wrote in a statement: "The clear result sends a signal to the Swiss People's Party (SVP) and right-wing populist forces: The population no longer wants any new Schwarzenbach initiatives."

Furthermore, the population supports stable relations with the EU. "This gives momentum to the upcoming debates on the Bilateral Agreements III," the SP continued.

The Greens are also relieved after the public rejected the initiative. "The bourgeois parties must finally end their long-standing pandering to the SVP's misanthropic narratives," demands President Lisa Mazzone.

Like the Social Democratic Party (SP), the Greens want to secure European cooperation through the Bilateral Agreements III. "Switzerland is not an island," parliamentary group leader Greta Gysin points out.

Vote Projection: 52% against Population Cap 

Swiss voters are likely to reject the "No 10 Million Switzerland" (population cap of 10 million), according to public broadcaster SRF, which cited a political scientist at GFS Bern. These early projection results come after voting closed on Sunday. 

As of 1 pm local time, GFS Bern political scientist Lukas Golder says the new projection of the "No 10 Million Switzerland" initiative shows 47.6% of voters in favor and 52.4% opposed.

The measure, backed by common-sense right-leaning politicians, including the Swiss People's Party, argued that out-of-control migrant population growth was worsening overcrowding, housing costs, public transport pressure, and overbuilding. 

Switzerland, with 9.1 million people, has the highest proportion of foreign-born of any major country, and the Swiss are sick of it.

On Sunday, Swiss vote on a referendum to cut family reunification and asylum claims to zero, if popultion reaches 9.5 million. At 10 million, not… pic.twitter.com/7Brx9CNPFj

— Jared Taylor (@RealJarTaylor) June 12, 2026

Opponents, including the government, parliament, globalist CEOs, and economists, warned that the cap would restrict access to foreign labor, damage growth, and reduce long-term economic output.

Related:

• Globalist CEOs Sound Alarm Over Swiss Population Cap Vote

Switzerland has been pursuing largely unchecked mass-migration policies, with roughly one-quarter of its resident population being foreign nationals.

Consequences of mass-migration:

Switzerland is doing the right thing. Poor immigration policy has resulted in more crime and ghettoization of their cities. pic.twitter.com/u8qCxwvyGw

— Casa ♱ 🇺🇸 (@geezindigenous) June 13, 2026

Last year at the UN, President Trump warned globalists in the West who pushed nation-killing open borders and the migrant invasion: "When prisons are packed with 'asylum seekers' who repay kindness with crime, open borders have failed."

🚨 Trump at UN: “When prisons are packed with ‘asylum seekers’ who repay kindness with crime, open borders have failed.”
2024 stats:
• Germany: ~50% inmates foreign/migrant
• Austria: 53%
• Greece: 54%
• Switzerland: 72%

Close the borders.

pic.twitter.com/AXXqzlbXec

— 𝔉🅰𝒏 Karoline Leavitt (@WHLeavitt) December 6, 2025

Across Europe and the U.S., years of top-down nation-killing open border policies by globalist politicians have collided with public outrage. In many countries, voters never gave left-wing political elites a mandate for the invasion of migrants. Now, out-of-control migrant crime, combined with pressure on housing, public services, wages, and social cohesion, is helping fuel a broader populist backlash against the left-wing political establishment.

Globalists Spread Doomer Propaganda As Switzerland Votes On Immigration Cap

Switzerland is not a part of the European Union; it's an independent state operating in the midst of the EU apparatus, but you wouldn't know it with so many EU representatives and globalist proponents demanding the right to dictate Swiss immigration policy. 

The Swiss public is voting on June 14th on a population cap which is aimed at ending the steady stream of mass immigration into the country over the past 10 years.  In response, globalists and multiculturalists from within the country and without have launched a propaganda campaign to frighten voters with fears of economic collapse should they vote yes. 

It's a narrative that has been repeated in the UK, the US, and a number of EU member states:  "Without steady immigration, western economies will dry up from the lack of a skilled labor pool." 

The Guardian has platformed a member of the German branch of the Council on Foreign Relations (an institution specifically tasked with ending national sovereignty and erasing borders) who claims the Swiss are about to undermine their own prosperity by refusing to accept more immigrants.  They refer to the vote as a "Swiss Brexit by stealth..."

But Switzerland cannot "Brexit" if they were never a member of the EU to begin with.  This does not seem to concern The Guardian:

"If there is one near-uncontested lesson from modern economic history, it is that open societies win. Openness to immigration was long the defining superpower of the US. Japan's strict immigration policy explains its dismal growth performance, and the fact that its average effective retirement age for men stands at 69.5 years. 

Switzerland's remarkable ascent from peasant backwater to high-tech economy in 200 years tells the same tale. With no natural resources, Switzerland has grown wealthy because it has provided a stable economic climate that attracted foreign innovators..."

There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim.  In fact, the data shows quite the opposite is true.  Mass immigration, specifically immigration from the third world, consistently drags the economy down.  The US has seen this problem surface over and over again and it is largely due to the quality of the migrants.  Third worlders do not bring wealth or skill value to any first world nation.

The EU, as an authoritarian body, might seek to punish the Swiss for defying the globalist agenda, but that is an engineered consequence, not a natural one.

Switzerland is the richest economy in Europe per capita and they do have an extensive migrant population.  Around 30% of the nation's current citizenry is foreign born.  However, 80% of these "migrants" are western born and are not from the third world.  The "skilled labor" is coming from other western nations, not India, not Pakistan, not the north of Africa. 

The increasing tide of migrants from these parts of the world into Europe is starting to bleed into Switzerland, and the Swiss see the writing on the wall.  The EU members with the most immigration are also dealing with the worst economic stagnation. 

For example, Germany continues to deal with an unemployment rate hovering around 6.3%, with about 2.9 million people out of work. The labor market is experiencing a slowdown. Despite the rising joblessness, severe skilled labor shortages persist.  In other words, migrants are not filling the job roles most needed within the German economy.  

France's unemployment rate climbed to 8.1% in the first quarter of 2026, reaching its highest level in five years and surpassing mainstream expectations. The increase brings the total number of unemployed job seekers to approximately 2.6 million.  The French government has been flooding the country with migrants for over a decade and the system is drowning.  

Spain has recently instituted an amnesty program for hundred of thousands of third worlders, which has triggered another migration rush.  It's important to understand that migrants from developing nations view the west as a target to be fleeced, not as a new home.  Many migrants continue to maintain residency in their home countries while they siphon welfare benefits from Europeans. 

Spain has the second-highest unemployment rate in the EU at 10.8% and a 23% unemployment rate for young workers 25 years old and under. 

All of these countries are also facing a disastrous housing crisis.  Mass immigration is destroying the rental and home owner markets.  Germany has seen a 15% rise in rental costs, France is at 20% and Spain is at 25%. Rental availability is tight across the board with around 2% vacancy in medium to large population centers.   Home prices in all three countries have skyrocketed by 15% to 40% depending on the region.  Structural shortages continue to plague home buyers.

Switzerland has seen these numbers and they have seen the rising tide of third worlders trying to gain entry.  It makes perfect sense for them to cap immigration.  The Guardian Op Ed is revealing in the way it exposes the globalist ideology - Their argument is, essentially, that foreigners are entitled to access western economies as a kind of "civil right". 

"...Beneath the economics lies something even more troubling. What makes the Dubai model so appealing to the radical right is that abandoning EU treaties would not only allow the SVP to cut immigration but also to strip foreigners of their rights entirely. For instance, they have proposed barring German and French workers from bringing their families. Switzerland would join the league of autocratic states that deny foreigners what conservatives claim to hold most dear: a life rooted in family."

It might sound like empathetic advocacy, but it is actually insanity.  If it is "autocratic" for a nation to limit foreign access, then so be it.  Foreigners (whether from the West or the Third World) are not entitled to the fruits of the Swiss economy.  The idea that limitations are "unjust" or despotic is a product of leftist tripe and globalist disinformation. 

Whether the vote on the population cap succeeds or fails, the Swiss have a renowned reputation as purveyors of order and common sense.  It would be a shame for them to abandon it simply to avoid meaningless accusations of "xenophobia" or "autocracy".  Frankly, their economy will remain far better off than the rest of Europe by applying a measure of logical discrimination.     

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 11:15

Strategy's New Math: Dilution Equals Accretion?

Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance

Strategy’s Bitcoin is worth roughly $12 billion less than the company paid for it, yet Michael Saylor’s message last week was simple: “Business is Good.”

But today’s article isn’t really about unrealized losses. It’s about whether Strategy is changing the way it measures shareholder accretion and company performance on the fly — also known as “moving the goalposts”.

As a short seller, I’ve watched innumerable companies “move the goalposts” and try and focus the market on new metrics when old ones aren’t showing the story they want them to anymore. Sometimes, companies outright delete key performance indicators (KPIs) and use new ones.

Strategy has taught investors that the objective was to increase Bitcoin ownership on a per-share basis. The company created “BTC Yield” as a KPI specifically to measure whether capital raises and Bitcoin purchases were benefiting existing shareholders.

Strategy repeatedly argued that traditional accounting metrics were largely irrelevant and that what mattered was how much Bitcoin each share represented. For example, from the Q1 2026 earnings call:

“Our ultimate objective is for our common to outperform Bitcoin by accreting Bitcoin per share…” - Strategy CEO Phong Le

“Which should increase the Bitcoin per share in our common stock, which is ultimately our goal…” - Strategy CEO Phong Le

“One is Bitcoin per share accretion is our primary goal.” - Strategy CEO Phong Le

These statements leave little room for interpretation. Bitcoin per share isn’t merely one metric among many. It is presented as the central measure of equity performance.

That’s what makes the recent capital raise and bitcoin buy so interesting. According to Strategy’s own website, BTC Yield declined between June 1 and June 8.

Under the framework the company spent years promoting, that’s a problem. If BTC Yield measures whether shareholders are becoming owners of more Bitcoin on a per-share basis, then a decline means the transaction was dilutive to existing shareholders on that metric.

That doesn’t automatically mean the raise was a bad decision. A company can improve liquidity, strengthen its balance sheet, or position itself for future opportunities while still reducing Bitcoin per share in the short term. But it does mean that under Strategy’s own preferred scoreboard, shareholders ended up with less Bitcoin exposure per share after the transaction than before.

Rather than defending the raise on BTC Yield grounds, Saylor now appears to be emphasizing a different framework. His argument is that when both Bitcoin and cash are included, the transaction was accretive. In other words, shareholders may own less Bitcoin per share, but they own more total assets per share.

That not an enormous shift in narrative — not unlike how selling 32 bitcoin wasn’t a huge sale — but it’s a shift nonetheless. For years, the pitch was Bitcoin per share. Now the defense is assets per share.

Critics have noticed the change. One observer on X summarized it this way:

“Changing his own definition after the fact. When BTC Yield goes up, bulls celebrate it as proof of shareholder accretion. When BTC Yield goes down, suddenly we’re supposed to ignore BTC Yield and invent a new metric that includes cash.”

Another pointed out the deeper tension. Saylor spent years building a valuation framework around Bitcoin-per-share growth. Yet when defending the recent raise, he relied on net asset value logic. The problem is that Strategy’s premium has never been justified by the current value of the assets sitting on the balance sheet.

Investors have ostensibly historically paid a premium because they may have believed management could continue growing Bitcoin ownership per share over time. The valuation, to the best of my understanding, rested on future Bitcoin-per-share growth, not a static snapshot of current assets.

That’s why the debate matters. If the relevant metric is Bitcoin per share, then the decline in BTC Yield raises uncomfortable questions about the transaction. If the relevant metric is current net assets per share, then the raise may look defensible, but the rationale for a substantial premium over net asset value becomes harder to explain.

🔥 80% Off If You Subscribe Today. This coupon allows for 80% off of annual subscriptions and results in a 85% savings over paying the monthly rate for a subscription to the blog. You keep the discounted rate for as long as you wish to remain a subscriber.: Get 80% off forever

Saylor appears to be trying to have it both ways. The old framework supports the premium but makes the recent raise look dilutive. The new framework supports the raise but weakens the logic behind the premium. Investors can reasonably prefer either framework, but they should notice when management switches from one to the other.

Saylor is also engaging in what appears to be ticky-tacky doublespeak to explain his actions...

“I told YOU never to sell $BTC.
I never said the COMPANY wouldn’t sell $BTC .”

That’s how Saylor responded to the question about selling 32 $BTC pic.twitter.com/vn7o1DqKP1

— newry | 𝔽rAI (@NeWry24) June 13, 2026

The real issue isn’t whether the weekend raise was good or bad. It’s whether the company is still using the same definition of shareholder accretion that it spent years teaching investors to use. When BTC Yield was rising, Strategy told shareholders that Bitcoin per share was the metric that mattered most. Now that BTC Yield has fallen, Saylor is increasingly talking about total assets per share instead. Investors should decide for themselves whether that’s an evolution in thinking or simply moving the goalposts. And Saylor better hope bitcoin doesn’t keep crashing.

--

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions.

As of May 20, 2026 I personally no longer actively trade (read my story here). My investing/saving is done by recurring contributions mostly to sector ETFs and a few select equities, trusted third parties who oversee my accounts, and advisors. Such advisors or funds, through individual equities, options, index funds, mutual funds, ETFs, or other securities, may have positions in, exposure to, or holdings of names mentioned herein that I know nothing about. Basically, via index funds, ETFs and individual equities it is possible I could own, have exposure to, or not own anything at any point. As of the same date, May 20, 2026, in an attempt to lead a healthier lifestyle, I’ve also excluded myself from fantasy sports, sports betting, online and in-person casinos and prediction markets.

And all positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 10:30

Talking Across The Divide

Authored by J. Peder Zane via RealClearPolitics,

How we see politics reveals a lot about who we are. But it is less akin to a Rorschach ink blot than one of those reversible images, like the drawing that is both a rabbit and a duck. As messy as society might be, it is not some blob open to any interpretation (at least not yet, anyway). The patterns are there. But where we see one clear thing clearly, our pal may see another just as sharply.

The difference is that we can ultimately resolve the artistic conflict - yes, I see both my wife and my mother-in-law in the drawing; when it comes to politics, we tend to dig in our heels and insist on our single reading.

I felt as if I was peering at a reversible image the other day while talking with a progressive friend about the major challenges confronting the U.S. Surveying the American landscape, he saw a nation in peril largely because of a handful of billionaire "oligarchs" who use their tremendous influence to shape policy while resisting efforts to pay their "fair share." Imposing wealth taxes and closing loopholes, he said, is both a moral and economic necessity to start improving the picture.

I countered that I didn't see the problem as a handful of rich guys but the many millions of Americans who lack the education, skills, and burning desire to better their own lives. The problem is not, for example, a lack of funding, but a broken education system; it is not a porous safety net, but the unwillingness of people to work.

As these discussions go, my friend was not armed with studies and statistics to support his point - he's kept busy by his demanding job and the family he loves. Honestly, this can get frustrating for those of us who are paid to know and remember such material. It's taken me too long to realize that commanding more evidence doesn't necessarily make me right. Other people's summary knowledge of all they've seen and read may lack specifics, but it doesn't make them wrong.

He made some excellent points. The rise of technology has allowed a coterie of true visionaries - including Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and the late Steve Jobs - and the hedge fund guys who've piggy-backed on their talents to become unimaginably rich. They didn't invent the future, but were smart, and lucky enough to see where things were headed and did a better job than other smart and tenacious people to drive and capitalize on change. No matter their talents, many of them could only have grown so rich in America, which is home to about a third of the world's billionaires.

As almost every American agrees on the need for a tax system, he noted, the question is not whether they should pay a portion of their earnings to the government, but how much. He could not pinpoint exactly what a fair share would be. He said that the question is beside the point - fair is not a firm rate but an ever-changing number based on what people have and what the government needs. He did say that I wasn't crazy to think progressives reject any set limit as a ceiling that would limit their demand for more.

He was roughly aware that top earners pay a large share of federal taxes. I told him that the most recent IRS data indicates the top 1% paid about 38.4% of all federal individual income; include the top 10% and the figure rises above 70%. That's a lot of their money going to us.

But he noted that their effective tax rate - for the top 1% it was 26.1% in 2022 - is not onerous. And the billionaires, in particular, use a passel of legal deductions and carve-outs to reduce their tax bills.

"I know their money creates jobs and investments in the private sector," he said, "but we have a massive debt [now north of $39 trillion] and huge annual deficits that have to be paid by someone. They can best afford it." He added, "Maybe we should, like Europe, raise everyone's taxes a lot, but that is not politically viable right now. Since we need money, the rich and very rich are the best place to start."

We both agreed that people should pay for the government they want and that tax rates should not be set because of some abstract notion of fairness, but at levels that will maximize revenue.

Nevertheless, I countered that the American landscape can be viewed another way. First, I said the focus on the rich seeks to create a single bogeyman to blame for all our problems. The implication that simply taking more from Bezos and Musk is the cure for what ails us is not true - rich as they are, their fortunes are small compared to government spending. More importantly, the focus shifts the responsibility from individuals who are the captains of their own ships and leaders who have failed to govern wisely to a relatively small number of largely blameless individuals.

To take a few examples, I asserted that the superrich are not to blame for the chronic rate of absenteeism at our public schools; the record numbers of young men who are not part of the workforce; the declining rates of marriage and births. The superrich are not the reason why some of the most heavily regulated industries, including health care, education, and housing, have seen some of the highest rises in costs. Our aching moral challenge is not centered in the tax code - which falsely suggests our problems could be easily solved - but in the decisions we the people are making in our own lives.

Finally, I said, the government has plenty of money. If the federal government were a private business, its increasing revenues over the years would make it a darling of Wall Street. The problem is we spend even more. And, as recent reporting has documented, a good deal of that spending is lost to waste and fraud at every level of government.

"Let's try to fix what's broken," I told my friend, "instead of throwing more money on the dumpster fire."

"I see your point," he responded, "but we can't let problems fester waiting for a fix that might never come. And it's just wrong that these guys have so much when the need is so great."

At the end, neither of us changed our minds; we still viewed the American landscape differently. But given how bitterly divided our nation is, I found great value in just having the conversation; in respectfully listening to one another, making the effort to see where each is coming from. So much political discussion looks for fault lines in the other side's arguments rather than their strengths. We look to confirm our views rather than expand them. If we want to persuade others, the first thing we must do is listen to them. This seems obvious, so why don't we start doing it?

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 09:20