NASA Bans Chinese Nationals From Working On Agency Programs

NASA has barred Chinese nationals holding U.S. visas from its facilities and networks, the latest move by Washington to safeguard the space agency as its space race with Beijing intensifies.

Chinese nationals, who until now could work at NASA as contractors or contribute to its research, were informed on Sept. 5 that their access to the agency’s systems and facilities had been revoked. Bloomberg first reported that many suddenly found themselves locked out of NASA data systems and excluded from both in-person and virtual meetings related to their work.

NASA press secretary Bethany Stevens confirmed the decision, stating that the agency had taken “internal action pertaining to Chinese nationals—including restricting physical and cybersecurity access to our facilities, materials, and network to ensure the security of our work.”

But, as Bill Pan reports below for The Epoch Times, the move comes amid heightened scrutiny of Chinese nationals working in sensitive U.S. technology sectors, as in recent years, a growing number of individuals have been accused of conducting espionage on behalf of the Chinese communist regime. In August, the Department of War—then called the Department of Defense—ordered Microsoft to stop using China-based engineers to support the military agency’s cloud computing systems.

It remains unclear if a specific incident triggered NASA’s action. In response to a request for comment, the agency’s press office referred The Epoch Times to a post on X featuring acting administrator Sean Duffy’s appearance on Fox Business.

In that interview, Duffy said the United States must lead what he described as a “second space race,” warning that the Chinese regime is not advancing its lunar agenda “with good intentions.”

“It’s a military operation for the Chinese,” he said.

“We can’t cede space.”

Duffy’s remarks echo earlier warnings from U.S. defense officials, including Gen. B. Chance Saltzman, head of the U.S. Space Force, who cautioned earlier this year that the Chinese regime’s space efforts were inseparable from its military objectives.

Since the Apollo 11 mission in 1969, the United States has remained the only country to land humans on the Moon. China, meanwhile, only launched its first crewed spaceflight in 2003 but has rapidly accelerated its space program, aiming to put taikonauts on the lunar surface by the end of the decade.

In August, China completed a full-size static fire test of its Long March-10 moon rocket, hitting a new milestone in its manned lunar program. A variant of the rocket, the partially reusable Long March-10A, is expected to debut in 2026 and support supply runs to the Tiangong space station, which is set to be the only space station in orbit once the International Space Station (ISS) retires in 2030.

NASA is pursuing its own lunar return through its Artemis program, which it hopes will pave the way for future Mars missions. But the timeline has been repeatedly pushed back. Artemis II, a crewed flyby of the Moon, is now scheduled for no earlier than April 2026; while Artemis III, the first crewed lunar landing since Apollo, is unlikely before mid-2027.

The delays stem in part from technical issues uncovered during the uncrewed Artemis I mission in late 2022, when the Orion spacecraft’s heat shield suffered greater-than-expected charring during reentry, causing pieces to burn away.

Despite the setbacks, Duffy maintained that NASA is positioned to keep the lead in the lunar race with China.

“We will get to the Moon under President [Donald] Trump’s term,” he wrote in a post on X on Sept. 5. “Our mission is Artemis. We will win the second space race. China wants to beat us there, but we won’t let them.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 21:35

Rickards: All Eyes On An Irrelevant Fed

Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com,

The Federal Reserve is irrelevant unless it’s doing damage to the economy. Since the Fed is often doing damage to the economy, it does require our attention.

Claiming the Fed is irrelevant seems outlandish.

The Fed dominates the headlines. An upcoming meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC, the Fed’s interest rate policy group) on September 16-17 is already receiving outsized attention because of the likelihood that the Fed will cut interest rates for the first time since December 2004. Trump’s efforts to mold the Fed board of governors to his liking with appointments and firings is another focal point for market attention.

At times, the Fed seems to be at the center of the financial universe.

It’s not.

It is true that the Fed is the central bank of the United States and that it has the power to print (really, digitally create) the U.S. dollar, the currency in which 60% of global reserves are denominated. It’s also the lead regulator of U.S. bank holding companies and almost all-important banks are members of the Federal Reserve System. There is a lot of power in those roles.

But the power narrative crumbles quickly when we look at what the Fed actually does and how they do it. That’s a task the Fed does not want you to do because they prefer to hide behind a curtain of monetary omnipotence. Let’s pull back the curtain and see what’s really going on.

Creating Money Out of Thin Air

How is money created? The Fed does print money (called M0) by buying U.S. Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities from a select list of banks called the primary dealers. I was chief counsel and chief credit officer of a top primary dealer for ten years and we spoke to the Fed daily. So, I’ve had a front row seat of this process. When the Fed buys securities from a dealer, they pay with dollars pulled out of thin air.

But since 2008, those dollars are then put on deposit with the Fed by the banks in the form of excess reserves. Those dollars don’t go anywhere. The Fed is simply expanding its balance sheet with securities on the asset side and deposits on the liability side. The Fed pays interest on those excess reserves, so the banks are fine with the arrangement. The actual dollars are not lent, spent or invested. They’re sterilized on the Fed balance sheet. It’s all a mirage.

Money creation that is useful for the economy doesn’t happen at the Fed. It happens at commercial banks. They also create money out of thin air (called M1) by making a loan and crediting the borrower’s account. That’s the money that can be used by business for investment, new jobs, working capital or other productive purposes. M1 is also created for consumers in the form of mortgages, credit cards, lines of credit and other extensions of credit. If you want to know where money comes from, don’t look at the Fed. Look at the banks.

Unfortunately, bank lending is starting to dry up. Consumer credit losses are piling up. Some consumers are cutting back on their credit cards as a precautionary measure. Mortgage creation is slowing because homeowners don’t want to sell since they’d have to refinance their current low-rate mortgages (from 2021-2024) at higher rates. Businesses don’t want to borrow because investment opportunities are scarce, and new hiring has hit the wall. When borrowers don’t want to borrow and banks don’t want to lend, you have the makings of a recession. So-called “fed stimulus” won’t change that.

The FOMC target rate for fed funds (called the policy rate) is also irrelevant. It is likely to be cut by 0.25% at the September 17 meeting. But the fed funds market to which that rate applies has not functioned since the 2008 financial panic. In other words, the Fed is targeting a rate for a market that doesn’t exist.

Meanwhile, two markets that do exist – the market for four-week Treasury bills and the secured overnight financing rate market (SOFR, basically the repo rate) – both have rates that are materially below the fed funds target rate. The Fed is not leading the market to lower rates; they’re following the market.

Fed Models – A Bunch of Nonsense

Trump is banging the table demanding lower rates from the Fed. He should be careful what he wishes for. Trump will get lower rates not from the Fed but from the market itself. But those lower rates are not stimulus; they’re a sign of recession or even depression. A healthy, growing economy has rates closer to the 4% to 5% range. Trump will get the 2% rates he’s looking for by next year. But by then, unemployment will have risen, and the stock market will have fallen out of bed. That’s not exactly the outcome he was hoping for.

Why is the Fed so bad at its job? Why can’t the Fed actually stimulate the economy and avoid recessions? The reasons for this have to do with the Fed’s belief in economic models that do not accord with reality.

The Fed follows a model called the Phillips Curve. This model claims that unemployment and inflation have an inverse correlation. If unemployment is low, inflation will be on the rise. If unemployment rises, inflation will be low. The Fed has a “dual mandate” to keep unemployment low and keep inflation low at the same time. If the Phillips Curve is true, it should be easy to pick the target and not worry about the other factor because it takes care of itself due to the inverse correlation.

But the Phillips Curve is a joke. The late 1970s were a time of 10% unemployment and 15% interest rates. Both parts of the dual mandate were out of control. There was no inverse correlation. The 2010s were a time of low inflation and low unemployment. Again, there was no inverse correlation.

You can always draw a Phillips Curve on a graph, but it has no predictive analytic power and offers no policy guidance. Still, the Fed believes in it, which is why they have not cut rates for almost a year. The Fed is worried about inflation even as unemployment is on the rise. This high-rate policy will just make the unemployment situation worse.

The Fed also believes that medium-to-long-term rates on Treasury securities are a function of a hypothetical strip of short-term rates rolled over for the full term of the long-dated security. Since the Fed can influence short-term rates, they believe they can also affect rates on five- and ten-year Treasury notes through a combination of policy changes and forward guidance. To the extent that market rates on, say, a five-year Treasury note vary from the implied five-year rate using the Fed’s model, they dismiss this as a “term premium” imposed by the market for some unknown reason (presumably expectations that vary from forward guidance).

That theory is another batch of nonsense. Medium-to-long-term rates are set by the market for intrinsic reasons having to do with liquidity, hedging and portfolio allocations. Long-term rates have nothing to do with the present value of a hypothetical strip of short-term bills. There is no empirical evidence to support the idea of a term premium – it’s a pure invention with no analytical value. Again, the Fed is creating models that do not accord with reality for the sole purpose of enhancing their own importance.

Drama At The Fed

Finally, we come to the topic du jour, which is Fed “independence.” Trump’s calls for Fed Chair Jay Powell’s resignation and Trump’s firing of Fed Governor Lisa Cook are both viewed as threats to the Fed’s independence. The plot thickens when one considers Trump’s nomination of Stephen Miran to fill a vacant seat on the Fed’s board of governors following the resignation of Governor Adriana Kugler. Miran is currently Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors. And has suggested he will keep his White House position while serving on the Fed board of governors, another threat to Fed independence.

Fed independence is a red herring. It has never really existed. When the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913, the Secretary of the Treasury was a member of the Fed board. Fed meetings were actually held in the Treasury building. This arrangement prevailed until FDR reorganized the Fed in 1934.

The Federal Reserve exercised no independence at all from 1942 to 1951 during which time the Fed agreed at the request of the U.S. Treasury to maintain a low interest rate of 0.375% (3/8ths of one percent) on Treasury bills and 2.5% on long-term Treasury bonds. Granted this agreement ran during the course of World War II and most of the Korean War, but it does demonstrate that the Fed will align with Treasury preferences as circumstances require.

In 1965, during the Johnson administration, LBJ invited Fed Chair William McChesney Martin to his ranch and physically assaulted him after Martin pushed through an interest rate hike two days before. In 1972, President Richard Nixon pressured Fed Chair Arthur Burns to maintain an expansionary monetary policy to help his election chances in the presidential election that year. Burns followed orders and that is considered to have contributed to the Great Inflation that resulted in the late 1970s.

You can debate the wisdom of these moves but there’s no debate that the Fed has frequently bent to political pressure over the decades. To single out Trump as a unique threat to Fed independence is untrue and historically wrong.

This brings us to Trump’s firing of Fed Governor Lisa Cook. She was clearly an affirmative action or DEI appointee. She was touted as the “first black woman” on the Fed board (as if that mattered) while no one could point to a distinguished scholarly record or any contributions to monetary theory. Accusations of plagiarism in her articles have arisen. Those facts by themselves are not a reason to fire her. She’s not alone as a DEI appointee.

But it now appears that she lied on several mortgage applications. She claimed certain homes as her “primary residence” when there can only be one. She also said another home was a residence when it was for investment purposes. Such claims can result in lower interest rates and higher loan-to-value ratios for the borrower. These matters are now under criminal investigation by the Department of Justice. Trump fired Cook “for cause” (as authorized by statute) based on these allegations. That seems to be justified considering that the Fed is the principal regulator of banks that are mortgage lenders.

Cook is suing to prevent her firing. The matter is now in the courts and may be resolved soon, but any decision is likely to be appealed. Meanwhile, the uncertainty about whether Cook is or is not on the board casts another shadow over whatever the Fed does on September 17.

Trump has also started a horse race to replace Jay Powell as Chair. Powell’s term expires in May 2026. Trump’s three candidates are Kevin Warsh (a former board member), Christopher Waller (a current board member who could be promoted from member to Chair) and Kevin Hasset (currently the White House Director of the National Economic Council).

Two current members of the Fed board, Michelle Bowman and Waller, were appointed by Trump in his first term. Stephan Miran and another appointee to replace Lisa Cook would give Trump four appointees out of the seven-person board. If Waller replaces Powell as Chair, Trump will have another appointee to fill the Waller board seat next May. Trump is well on his way to controlling the Fed board and its Chair through the appointments process.

That’s important, but in the end it won’t matter. Interest rates are coming down for reasons that are bigger than the Fed and that the Fed can’t control. Low rates are not the stimulus that Trump imagines. Rates are coming down fast because the U.S. economy is heading for recession. Trump may claim he controls the Fed, but he will end up owning the economic debacle to come.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 21:00

Operation "Let's Grab The Oil"

Authored by Chris Macintrosh via InternationalMan.com,

It’s back on track...

I don’t know if you remember it, but last year I hypothesized that the Trump administration would focus their attention on a North/South axis of power… and less on an East/West.

Part of this is down to the fact the US Military is stretched globally, and likely no small part comes down to the fact that their ability to project power has for decades been reliant on their naval capabilities. These are now rendered obsolete due to the Russian missiles which can sink them and are unstoppable. All parties know this, though it remains to be seen whether US hubris may ignore it nonetheless.

In any event, focusing on the easy prey — the US own backyard, so to speak. Canada (remember the comments about “Governor Trudeau?”) and the political pressure on Mexico. Then there is the strong allegiance now with Argentina and the pressure being placed on Brazil, the focus on Panama — the canal being all important, of course. All of this is due to a North/South pivot.

So included in this is, of course, Venezuela.

The Escalating Political Showdown: Trump vs. Maduro Over Venezuela’s Black Gold

The relationship between the Donald and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has devolved into one of the most hilarious and contentious international political feuds of recent years, with both leaders engaging in increasingly hostile rhetoric. Of course, it’s all theatre — a sideshow masking the real prize: the struggle over Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, the largest proven reserves in the world.

Why, for example, is Don not blabbing about Costa Rica or Honduras or any other country in the region?

The Bounty That Started It All

Back in March of 2020 the US administration placed a $15 million bounty on Maduro’s head through the DEA’s “Narcotics Rewards Program.” They accused Maduro and other Venezuelan officials of “narco-terrorism” and drug trafficking conspiracy charges. This bounty, along with similar rewards for other Venezuelan officials totaling over $55 million, marked the first time the United States had placed such a substantial price on a sitting head of state.

The US justified this action by claiming that Maduro’s regime had transformed Venezuela into a “criminal enterprise” that facilitated drug trafficking throughout the Western Hemisphere. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at the time declared that the Venezuelan government had become “one of the most corrupt and destructive forces in the Western Hemisphere.”

In reality, the CIA doesn’t like competition, but anyway…

Maduro’s Counterattack: The Epstein Files Gambit

Maduro’s response was swift and inflammatory. Taking to his official social media accounts, he pointed out who Trump pays allegiance to (Mossad) and suggested a release of the Epstein files. It’s all highly entertaining… except if you’re a Venezuelan, of course, wondering if Trump drops a “big beautiful bomb” on your head.

The Prize: Venezuela’s Oil Wealth

Behind this political theatre lies the true source of tension: Venezuela’s staggering oil reserves. According to OPEC data, Venezuela possesses approximately 303.8 billion barrels of proven oil reserves — roughly 18% of the world’s total. This makes Venezuela’s reserves larger than those of Saudi Arabia (267 billion barrels) and represents more oil than the combined reserves of Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait.

Despite this wealth, Venezuela’s oil production has plummeted from over 3 million barrels per day in the 1990s to barely 800,000 barrels per day by 2020, largely due to mismanagement, corruption, and international sanctions.

The Trump administration’s sanctions effectively cut off Venezuela’s access to US refineries and financial systems, costing the country an estimated $116 billion between 2017 and 2020. So there’s definitely no love lost there.

Social Media War

The conflict has played out extensively on social media platforms, with both leaders using their accounts to escalate tensions. Trump frequently posted on Truth Social about Venezuela, calling Maduro a “dictator” and claiming that “Venezuela’s oil belongs to its people, not to corrupt narco-terrorists.”

Meanwhile, Maduro has used his platforms to portray himself as a victim of “Yankee imperialism,” posting: “They want our oil, our gold, our resources. But the Bolivarian Revolution will never surrender to the gringo empire.”

The Broader Implications

This conflict represents more than personal animosity. It reflects broader geopolitical competition over energy resources in Latin America. Venezuela’s economic collapse has created a power vacuum that has drawn in actors from Russia, China, and Iran, all seeking to challenge US influence in the region.

As both leaders continue their war of words, the Venezuelan people remain caught in the middle, suffering from hyperinflation, shortages of basic goods, and a humanitarian crisis that has forced over 7 million Venezuelans to flee. The ultimate resolution of this conflict may determine not only Venezuela’s political future but also the global balance of energy power in the coming decades.

So what this boils down to is that one side is run by a narco-socialist who thinks he’s a demigod. The other side is run by a defense contractor in a presidential mask who is heavily influenced by a foreign nation that cannot be named lest you be called “antiseptic” or something like that.

You’re not watching geopolitics — you’re watching organized crime syndicates argue over who gets to sell oil and they can’t tell you the truth… so you’re sold all sorts of stories.

Most hilarious of all is that some overpaid intern in DC just coined the name for the US military action against Venezuela. They’re calling this — and I swear I’m not making it up — “Operation Democratic Stability.”

This isn’t war. It’s stagecraft with a budget.

Meanwhile, this just came to light…

“China Concord Resources Corp has begun developing two Venezuelan oilfields, planning to invest more than $1 billion in a project to produce 60,000 barrels per day of crude oil by end-2026, an executive directly involved in the project said.

The project marks a rare investment by a private Chinese firm in the OPEC country, which has struggled to attract foreign capital due to international sanctions on the administration of President Nicolas Maduro. The investment figure and the production plan are being reported for the first time.

Beijing has been a key ally of Maduro and his predecessor late President Hugo Chavez and is currently buying more than 90% of Venezuela’s total oil exports.

Chinese state oil giant CNPC was among the largest investors in Venezuela’s oil sector before U.S. energy sanctions were first imposed on Venezuela in 2019. China was also a big lender to Venezuela.”

By the way, as a mental note, do you think the peasants have noticed the shift? Not long ago we were all being told by some department or another, or some woke “influencer” (looking at you Leo DiCaprio) how the world would end if we didn’t stop using fossil fuels.

And now, all of a sardine, the US is on the verge of invading a sovereign country for their oil to save democracy. Imagine that! Actually, this would be a great test. Ask yourself if the US would be invading a country that was littered with wind turbines or solar panels. Me thinks not. Which proves the case.

One other thing, take a look at the S&P 500 sector allocation.

You may have to squint but near the bottom to see energy — a minuscule 3% of the index. The entirety of all the energy companies in the Spooz are less than a quarter of Nvidia. Sheesh!

*  *  *

What you’ve just read is more than a story about Venezuela — it’s a window into the broader forces shaping our world. Energy, geopolitics, and money are colliding in ways that will ripple far beyond Caracas or Washington. The real question is: how do you protect yourself and position ahead of what comes next? To dig deeper into the economic, political, and cultural shifts now unfolding — and what they mean for your wealth and freedom — we’ve prepared a free special report, Clash of the Systems: Thoughts on Investing at a Unique Point in Time. You can access it here and stay one step ahead of the storm.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 19:50

Operation "Let's Grab The Oil"

Authored by Chris Macintrosh via InternationalMan.com,

It’s back on track...

I don’t know if you remember it, but last year I hypothesized that the Trump administration would focus their attention on a North/South axis of power… and less on an East/West.

Part of this is down to the fact the US Military is stretched globally, and likely no small part comes down to the fact that their ability to project power has for decades been reliant on their naval capabilities. These are now rendered obsolete due to the Russian missiles which can sink them and are unstoppable. All parties know this, though it remains to be seen whether US hubris may ignore it nonetheless.

In any event, focusing on the easy prey — the US own backyard, so to speak. Canada (remember the comments about “Governor Trudeau?”) and the political pressure on Mexico. Then there is the strong allegiance now with Argentina and the pressure being placed on Brazil, the focus on Panama — the canal being all important, of course. All of this is due to a North/South pivot.

So included in this is, of course, Venezuela.

The Escalating Political Showdown: Trump vs. Maduro Over Venezuela’s Black Gold

The relationship between the Donald and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has devolved into one of the most hilarious and contentious international political feuds of recent years, with both leaders engaging in increasingly hostile rhetoric. Of course, it’s all theatre — a sideshow masking the real prize: the struggle over Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, the largest proven reserves in the world.

Why, for example, is Don not blabbing about Costa Rica or Honduras or any other country in the region?

The Bounty That Started It All

Back in March of 2020 the US administration placed a $15 million bounty on Maduro’s head through the DEA’s “Narcotics Rewards Program.” They accused Maduro and other Venezuelan officials of “narco-terrorism” and drug trafficking conspiracy charges. This bounty, along with similar rewards for other Venezuelan officials totaling over $55 million, marked the first time the United States had placed such a substantial price on a sitting head of state.

The US justified this action by claiming that Maduro’s regime had transformed Venezuela into a “criminal enterprise” that facilitated drug trafficking throughout the Western Hemisphere. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at the time declared that the Venezuelan government had become “one of the most corrupt and destructive forces in the Western Hemisphere.”

In reality, the CIA doesn’t like competition, but anyway…

Maduro’s Counterattack: The Epstein Files Gambit

Maduro’s response was swift and inflammatory. Taking to his official social media accounts, he pointed out who Trump pays allegiance to (Mossad) and suggested a release of the Epstein files. It’s all highly entertaining… except if you’re a Venezuelan, of course, wondering if Trump drops a “big beautiful bomb” on your head.

The Prize: Venezuela’s Oil Wealth

Behind this political theatre lies the true source of tension: Venezuela’s staggering oil reserves. According to OPEC data, Venezuela possesses approximately 303.8 billion barrels of proven oil reserves — roughly 18% of the world’s total. This makes Venezuela’s reserves larger than those of Saudi Arabia (267 billion barrels) and represents more oil than the combined reserves of Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait.

Despite this wealth, Venezuela’s oil production has plummeted from over 3 million barrels per day in the 1990s to barely 800,000 barrels per day by 2020, largely due to mismanagement, corruption, and international sanctions.

The Trump administration’s sanctions effectively cut off Venezuela’s access to US refineries and financial systems, costing the country an estimated $116 billion between 2017 and 2020. So there’s definitely no love lost there.

Social Media War

The conflict has played out extensively on social media platforms, with both leaders using their accounts to escalate tensions. Trump frequently posted on Truth Social about Venezuela, calling Maduro a “dictator” and claiming that “Venezuela’s oil belongs to its people, not to corrupt narco-terrorists.”

Meanwhile, Maduro has used his platforms to portray himself as a victim of “Yankee imperialism,” posting: “They want our oil, our gold, our resources. But the Bolivarian Revolution will never surrender to the gringo empire.”

The Broader Implications

This conflict represents more than personal animosity. It reflects broader geopolitical competition over energy resources in Latin America. Venezuela’s economic collapse has created a power vacuum that has drawn in actors from Russia, China, and Iran, all seeking to challenge US influence in the region.

As both leaders continue their war of words, the Venezuelan people remain caught in the middle, suffering from hyperinflation, shortages of basic goods, and a humanitarian crisis that has forced over 7 million Venezuelans to flee. The ultimate resolution of this conflict may determine not only Venezuela’s political future but also the global balance of energy power in the coming decades.

So what this boils down to is that one side is run by a narco-socialist who thinks he’s a demigod. The other side is run by a defense contractor in a presidential mask who is heavily influenced by a foreign nation that cannot be named lest you be called “antiseptic” or something like that.

You’re not watching geopolitics — you’re watching organized crime syndicates argue over who gets to sell oil and they can’t tell you the truth… so you’re sold all sorts of stories.

Most hilarious of all is that some overpaid intern in DC just coined the name for the US military action against Venezuela. They’re calling this — and I swear I’m not making it up — “Operation Democratic Stability.”

This isn’t war. It’s stagecraft with a budget.

Meanwhile, this just came to light…

“China Concord Resources Corp has begun developing two Venezuelan oilfields, planning to invest more than $1 billion in a project to produce 60,000 barrels per day of crude oil by end-2026, an executive directly involved in the project said.

The project marks a rare investment by a private Chinese firm in the OPEC country, which has struggled to attract foreign capital due to international sanctions on the administration of President Nicolas Maduro. The investment figure and the production plan are being reported for the first time.

Beijing has been a key ally of Maduro and his predecessor late President Hugo Chavez and is currently buying more than 90% of Venezuela’s total oil exports.

Chinese state oil giant CNPC was among the largest investors in Venezuela’s oil sector before U.S. energy sanctions were first imposed on Venezuela in 2019. China was also a big lender to Venezuela.”

By the way, as a mental note, do you think the peasants have noticed the shift? Not long ago we were all being told by some department or another, or some woke “influencer” (looking at you Leo DiCaprio) how the world would end if we didn’t stop using fossil fuels.

And now, all of a sardine, the US is on the verge of invading a sovereign country for their oil to save democracy. Imagine that! Actually, this would be a great test. Ask yourself if the US would be invading a country that was littered with wind turbines or solar panels. Me thinks not. Which proves the case.

One other thing, take a look at the S&P 500 sector allocation.

You may have to squint but near the bottom to see energy — a minuscule 3% of the index. The entirety of all the energy companies in the Spooz are less than a quarter of Nvidia. Sheesh!

*  *  *

What you’ve just read is more than a story about Venezuela — it’s a window into the broader forces shaping our world. Energy, geopolitics, and money are colliding in ways that will ripple far beyond Caracas or Washington. The real question is: how do you protect yourself and position ahead of what comes next? To dig deeper into the economic, political, and cultural shifts now unfolding — and what they mean for your wealth and freedom — we’ve prepared a free special report, Clash of the Systems: Thoughts on Investing at a Unique Point in Time. You can access it here and stay one step ahead of the storm.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 19:50

Most ICE Deportation Flights Are To Central America

ICE launched raids in Boston over the weekend, while an immigration crackdown is expected to take place in Chicago in the coming days. This development follows reports of a surge in immigration arrests in Washington D.C. and comes after a wave of aggressive ICE operations in Los Angeles earlier this summer. The Trump administration has said it will be focusing enforcement efforts on sanctuary cities, which are jurisdictions that restrict local law enforcement from sharing information with federal immigration authorities.

The Trump administration has overseen more than 1,100 deportation flights since the start of this year, according to data collected and analysed by Thomas Cartwright for Witness at the Border, an immigrant advocacy group.

As Statista's Anna Fleck shows in the chart below, the vast majority of these have been destined for countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

You will find more infographics at Statista

As of the end of July, 955 ICE removal flights were reported as going to the region this year, including 247 flights to Guatemala, 208 flights to Honduras, 136 flights to Mexico, 103 to El Salvador and 47 to Ecuador.

Meanwhile, 57 flights went to 22 countries in Africa, including seven flights to Mauritania and four flights to Angola, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria and Senegal.

A total of 22 flights had been sent to Asia as of July, including six flights to India, three to Nepal and two each to Bangladesh, Pakistan and Uzbekistan.

In Europe, one flight went to Albania, another to Greece and one to Kosovo. In Oceania, one flight went to the Marshall Islands.

The main departure hub for ICE air deportations in 2025 has been Alexandria in Louisiana, accounting for 290 removals flights between January and July (or 26 percent of total removals flights). The three next biggest hubs by removals flights so far this year are Harlingen (TX) with 185 flights (17 percent), El Paso (Texas) with 167 flights (15 percent) and San Diego (CA) with 53 flights (five percent).

*  *  *

*  *  *

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 19:15

Most ICE Deportation Flights Are To Central America

ICE launched raids in Boston over the weekend, while an immigration crackdown is expected to take place in Chicago in the coming days. This development follows reports of a surge in immigration arrests in Washington D.C. and comes after a wave of aggressive ICE operations in Los Angeles earlier this summer. The Trump administration has said it will be focusing enforcement efforts on sanctuary cities, which are jurisdictions that restrict local law enforcement from sharing information with federal immigration authorities.

The Trump administration has overseen more than 1,100 deportation flights since the start of this year, according to data collected and analysed by Thomas Cartwright for Witness at the Border, an immigrant advocacy group.

As Statista's Anna Fleck shows in the chart below, the vast majority of these have been destined for countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

You will find more infographics at Statista

As of the end of July, 955 ICE removal flights were reported as going to the region this year, including 247 flights to Guatemala, 208 flights to Honduras, 136 flights to Mexico, 103 to El Salvador and 47 to Ecuador.

Meanwhile, 57 flights went to 22 countries in Africa, including seven flights to Mauritania and four flights to Angola, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria and Senegal.

A total of 22 flights had been sent to Asia as of July, including six flights to India, three to Nepal and two each to Bangladesh, Pakistan and Uzbekistan.

In Europe, one flight went to Albania, another to Greece and one to Kosovo. In Oceania, one flight went to the Marshall Islands.

The main departure hub for ICE air deportations in 2025 has been Alexandria in Louisiana, accounting for 290 removals flights between January and July (or 26 percent of total removals flights). The three next biggest hubs by removals flights so far this year are Harlingen (TX) with 185 flights (17 percent), El Paso (Texas) with 167 flights (15 percent) and San Diego (CA) with 53 flights (five percent).

*  *  *

*  *  *

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 19:15

CENTCOM Chief Sits Down With Ex Al-Qaeda Commander One Day After 9/11 Anniversary

Via The Cradle

Self-appointed Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa met with the head of US Central Command (CENTCOM), Admiral Charles Bradley Cooper, on Friday, September 12, to discuss regional security and cooperation, the Syrian Presidency's office announced.

US Special Envoy to Syria, Tom Barrack, also attended the meeting with Sharaa in the People's Palace in Damascus. "The meeting discussed prospects for cooperation in the political and military fields, in a way that serves common interests and consolidates the foundations of security and stability in Syria and the region," the Syrian presidency said in a statement.

Image source: Syrian Presidency

The meeting between top US officials and Sharaa, a former Al-Qaeda and Islamic State in Iraq commander, occurred one day after the 24th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. 

The US government claims Al-Qaeda carried out the attacks that toppled the World Trade Center buildings and damaged the Pentagon, killing over 3,000 people.

"The meeting reflected the positive atmosphere and shared commitment to strengthening the strategic partnership and expanding channels of communication between Damascus and Washington at various levels," the statement issued by Sharaa's office said.

US President Donald Trump met with the Syrian president on May 13 in the Saudi capital, Riyadh. During the meeting, Trump announced the lifting of sanctions on Syria, praised Sharaa, and informed him of the need to take several measures, most notably normalizing relations with Israel.

Formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, Sharaa became known in Iraq for dispatching suicide bombers to kill US troops and Shia civilians after the 2003 US invasion. 

After his detention at the US-run Bucca Prison in Basra, Sharaa was released by US officials and became the leader of the Islamic State in Mosul.  In 2011, he traveled to Syria under the direct orders of ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and established the Nusra Front, which became the official Al-Qaeda affiliate in the country.

US, Israeli, and UK intelligence supported Sharaa and the Nusra Front for over a decade as part of the operation to topple the government of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, starting in 2011.

I like how the commander of US CENTCOM and the founder of the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda waited until 9/12 to meet

Getting together a day earlier would have been too on the nose pic.twitter.com/zCNUfNS3Qw

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) September 13, 2025

The CIA spent $1 billion per year on the operation to topple Assad, known as Timber Sycamore, which involved flooding Syria with weapons to arm the Nusra Front and other extremist Salafist armed groups. 

Nusra, which later rebranded as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), took power in Damascus in December 2024. Syrian forces loyal to Sharaa carried out the massacre of Alawite civilians in the coastal region of the country in March, followed by the massacre of Druze civilians in Suwayda governorate in July.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 18:40

CENTCOM Chief Sits Down With Ex Al-Qaeda Commander One Day After 9/11 Anniversary

Via The Cradle

Self-appointed Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa met with the head of US Central Command (CENTCOM), Admiral Charles Bradley Cooper, on Friday, September 12, to discuss regional security and cooperation, the Syrian Presidency's office announced.

US Special Envoy to Syria, Tom Barrack, also attended the meeting with Sharaa in the People's Palace in Damascus. "The meeting discussed prospects for cooperation in the political and military fields, in a way that serves common interests and consolidates the foundations of security and stability in Syria and the region," the Syrian presidency said in a statement.

Image source: Syrian Presidency

The meeting between top US officials and Sharaa, a former Al-Qaeda and Islamic State in Iraq commander, occurred one day after the 24th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. 

The US government claims Al-Qaeda carried out the attacks that toppled the World Trade Center buildings and damaged the Pentagon, killing over 3,000 people.

"The meeting reflected the positive atmosphere and shared commitment to strengthening the strategic partnership and expanding channels of communication between Damascus and Washington at various levels," the statement issued by Sharaa's office said.

US President Donald Trump met with the Syrian president on May 13 in the Saudi capital, Riyadh. During the meeting, Trump announced the lifting of sanctions on Syria, praised Sharaa, and informed him of the need to take several measures, most notably normalizing relations with Israel.

Formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, Sharaa became known in Iraq for dispatching suicide bombers to kill US troops and Shia civilians after the 2003 US invasion. 

After his detention at the US-run Bucca Prison in Basra, Sharaa was released by US officials and became the leader of the Islamic State in Mosul.  In 2011, he traveled to Syria under the direct orders of ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and established the Nusra Front, which became the official Al-Qaeda affiliate in the country.

US, Israeli, and UK intelligence supported Sharaa and the Nusra Front for over a decade as part of the operation to topple the government of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, starting in 2011.

I like how the commander of US CENTCOM and the founder of the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda waited until 9/12 to meet

Getting together a day earlier would have been too on the nose pic.twitter.com/zCNUfNS3Qw

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) September 13, 2025

The CIA spent $1 billion per year on the operation to topple Assad, known as Timber Sycamore, which involved flooding Syria with weapons to arm the Nusra Front and other extremist Salafist armed groups. 

Nusra, which later rebranded as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), took power in Damascus in December 2024. Syrian forces loyal to Sharaa carried out the massacre of Alawite civilians in the coastal region of the country in March, followed by the massacre of Druze civilians in Suwayda governorate in July.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 18:40

2 In 5 Young Adults Are Taking On Debt For Social Image, To Impress Peers, Study Finds

You can thank the Tik Tok, Instagram world we live in...

Money may not buy love, but for many young adults, it’s still the ticket to attention. A new study shows that two in five Gen Zers admit going into debt just to impress others — often in dating and social situations, according to Credit One Bank.

The pressure to perform financially is high among younger generations. Half of Gen Z and millennials (51%) say they’ve faked wealth or success, with Gen Z leading at 54%. Nearly 38% admit they’ve damaged their credit score or gone into debt to impress someone, and 37% say they’d even overdraft their accounts for a date. Men feel that pressure most: 46% would go into debt for a single date, compared to just 28% of women.

Credit One Bank writes that more than half of consumers say a high credit score makes someone more attractive, while nearly 70% would lose confidence in a boss with bad credit. Still, disclosure is rare: 54% of Gen Z and millennials prefer not to share their financial details with a partner until things get serious. Only 8% call poor financial history a marriage dealbreaker. Nearly half (48%) say they’d marry someone with a shaky financial past, especially if that person was improving. Gender gaps persist: men (47%) are more forgiving, while women are twice as likely to reject a partner over money issues (10% versus 5%).

Money talk remains awkward in friendships. Over 70% of women almost never discuss finances with friends, compared to about 60% of men. Yet with romantic partners, the story changes: 67% check in at least monthly, and 10% do so daily. Despite the discomfort, loyalty runs deep. More than half (51%) would help friends in financial crisis, though one in three say they’d stay cautious after receiving bad advice.

The study says financial independence is a top priority for many. Fifty-three percent say they’re determined to go it alone, while others admit they’d lean on family (27%) or even a partner (20%) for help. Gen Z often turns online for advice — even 21% from ChatGPT — but parents remain the leading source at 60%. Millennials, meanwhile, rely less on family (44%) and more on professionals (43%).

Finances don’t just influence relationships; they impact workplace credibility. Forty-three percent say they’d lose confidence in a boss with bad credit, while one in five would admire the honesty. When asked how they’d feel if loved ones knew their financial details, only a third felt proud. Men are more likely than women to feel confident, while higher earners are far prouder than those making under $50,000.

The bottom line: personality may still matter most in relationships, but today’s singles are swiping with one eye on the credit score. Between debt-fueled dating, social media pressures, and the drive for independence, money isn’t just part of the conversation — it’s often the deciding factor.

Read the full study here.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 18:05

2 In 5 Young Adults Are Taking On Debt For Social Image, To Impress Peers, Study Finds

You can thank the Tik Tok, Instagram world we live in...

Money may not buy love, but for many young adults, it’s still the ticket to attention. A new study shows that two in five Gen Zers admit going into debt just to impress others — often in dating and social situations, according to Credit One Bank.

The pressure to perform financially is high among younger generations. Half of Gen Z and millennials (51%) say they’ve faked wealth or success, with Gen Z leading at 54%. Nearly 38% admit they’ve damaged their credit score or gone into debt to impress someone, and 37% say they’d even overdraft their accounts for a date. Men feel that pressure most: 46% would go into debt for a single date, compared to just 28% of women.

Credit One Bank writes that more than half of consumers say a high credit score makes someone more attractive, while nearly 70% would lose confidence in a boss with bad credit. Still, disclosure is rare: 54% of Gen Z and millennials prefer not to share their financial details with a partner until things get serious. Only 8% call poor financial history a marriage dealbreaker. Nearly half (48%) say they’d marry someone with a shaky financial past, especially if that person was improving. Gender gaps persist: men (47%) are more forgiving, while women are twice as likely to reject a partner over money issues (10% versus 5%).

Money talk remains awkward in friendships. Over 70% of women almost never discuss finances with friends, compared to about 60% of men. Yet with romantic partners, the story changes: 67% check in at least monthly, and 10% do so daily. Despite the discomfort, loyalty runs deep. More than half (51%) would help friends in financial crisis, though one in three say they’d stay cautious after receiving bad advice.

The study says financial independence is a top priority for many. Fifty-three percent say they’re determined to go it alone, while others admit they’d lean on family (27%) or even a partner (20%) for help. Gen Z often turns online for advice — even 21% from ChatGPT — but parents remain the leading source at 60%. Millennials, meanwhile, rely less on family (44%) and more on professionals (43%).

Finances don’t just influence relationships; they impact workplace credibility. Forty-three percent say they’d lose confidence in a boss with bad credit, while one in five would admire the honesty. When asked how they’d feel if loved ones knew their financial details, only a third felt proud. Men are more likely than women to feel confident, while higher earners are far prouder than those making under $50,000.

The bottom line: personality may still matter most in relationships, but today’s singles are swiping with one eye on the credit score. Between debt-fueled dating, social media pressures, and the drive for independence, money isn’t just part of the conversation — it’s often the deciding factor.

Read the full study here.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 18:05

To End Political Violence, The Marxist Framework That Legitimizes It Must Be Rooted Out

Authored by John Hilton-O'Brien via The Epoch Times,

On Aug. 22, young Iryna Zarutska was murdered—not with a gun, but with a knife. The horror in the video circulating online comes less from the weapon than from the killer’s casual comment to a bystander: “I got that white girl.”

Those words reveal this was not simply an outburst of rage. They show a moral framework in which killing “that white girl” was normalized—even justified.

That is also what makes the assassination of Charlie Kirk so alarming. Some want to minimize it as just another “gun crime.”

But Kirk was not targeted because of a weapon. He was targeted because of an idea: the belief that violence against political opponents can be righteous.

Violence and Civilization

English-speaking culture, shaped by centuries of conflict, became very good at violence—but also at directing it toward legitimate ends. Shakespeare celebrated warrior kings like Henry V, whose “band of brothers” fought at Agincourt. Churchill, who rallied Britain against Nazi Germany, spoke of the power of short words—and “war” is remarkably amongst the shortest words in English. Violence itself is not evil—the problem comes when it is misdirected or undisciplined.

The original push for public education, born of a revival of classical learning, insisted that young people be taught to love truth rather than their own factions. It was a genuine attempt to train the passions of young citizens toward virtue—habits of mental and physical excellence.

But these insights have largely been abandoned by our public schools.

The Marxist Moral Framework

From the “Communist Manifesto” onward, Marxism has reduced human life to a battle between oppressors and oppressed. Class analysis cast revolution as liberation, and political violence as justice.

American professor Herbert Marcuse made this logic explicit in “Repressive Tolerance” in the 1960s. He argued that “tolerance” itself only served oppressors, and that silencing opponents of the left was a moral duty. He stopped short of calling for bloodshed—but his framework made the step to violence all too small.

Today’s identity politics simply works through the consequences of Marcuse’s script. “Oppressed and oppressor” is how we divide society. And you can define almost anyone as “the oppressor.” Classmates, political opponents, and even parents are cast as enemies. Rage becomes virtue. Political violence becomes justice.

This helps explain why Iryna’s killer believed his act was acceptable. It also helps explain how someone could see the assassination of Charlie Kirk not just as permissible, but as virtuous.

Marxism in Our Schools

The most disturbing part is that this framework is not confined to radical academics or activists. It is being actively taught in our schools.

The idea is simple—easier to understand and teach than virtue—and it is deeply seductive.

When a teacher introduces Marxist analysis, it feels like sharing a secret. Suddenly, teacher and student are “in” on something together—a hidden truth about how the world really works. That dynamic transforms the relationship.

Classroom management becomes easier. Students enjoy lessons that make them feel clever, even heroic: You and I see the truth, while the world out there is blind or corrupt. But the price of that intimacy is enormous. Once students buy into this “you and me against the world” dynamic, it becomes much harder for them to listen to anyone who is not “on their side.” Teachers become allies—including against parents.

This is how education cultivates political violence instead of virtue. We have seen what happens when children are raised this way. In Cyprus, whole generations were taught to see their neighbours as enemies. The result was decades of recurring conflict.

The same seeds are being planted here, in our own schools, under the banner of “equity” and “critical thinking.”

Once young people accept this worldview, they no longer see opponents as neighbours or fellow citizens. They see enemies. And once that shift occurs, political violence no longer shocks them. It can be rationalized—even praised.

Ending Political Violence

The crisis we face is not about weapons. Iryna Zarutska’s murderer carried a knife. Charlie Kirk’s assassin used a gun. Different tools, same logic: Both believed their violence was righteous.

That script is not picked up by accident. It is taught. It is reinforced every time a classroom divides the world into “oppressors” and “oppressed.” It is strengthened every time students are told that to silence or punish opponents is to do justice.

We will not end political violence until we root out the Marxist framework that legitimizes it. Education must once again teach virtue: to love truth, to hate injustice, and to direct courage against genuine threats to the common good.

Only then can we raise a generation ready to defend their neighbours—not destroy them.

It’s time to take Marxism out of schools.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 17:30

To End Political Violence, The Marxist Framework That Legitimizes It Must Be Rooted Out

Authored by John Hilton-O'Brien via The Epoch Times,

On Aug. 22, young Iryna Zarutska was murdered—not with a gun, but with a knife. The horror in the video circulating online comes less from the weapon than from the killer’s casual comment to a bystander: “I got that white girl.”

Those words reveal this was not simply an outburst of rage. They show a moral framework in which killing “that white girl” was normalized—even justified.

That is also what makes the assassination of Charlie Kirk so alarming. Some want to minimize it as just another “gun crime.”

But Kirk was not targeted because of a weapon. He was targeted because of an idea: the belief that violence against political opponents can be righteous.

Violence and Civilization

English-speaking culture, shaped by centuries of conflict, became very good at violence—but also at directing it toward legitimate ends. Shakespeare celebrated warrior kings like Henry V, whose “band of brothers” fought at Agincourt. Churchill, who rallied Britain against Nazi Germany, spoke of the power of short words—and “war” is remarkably amongst the shortest words in English. Violence itself is not evil—the problem comes when it is misdirected or undisciplined.

The original push for public education, born of a revival of classical learning, insisted that young people be taught to love truth rather than their own factions. It was a genuine attempt to train the passions of young citizens toward virtue—habits of mental and physical excellence.

But these insights have largely been abandoned by our public schools.

The Marxist Moral Framework

From the “Communist Manifesto” onward, Marxism has reduced human life to a battle between oppressors and oppressed. Class analysis cast revolution as liberation, and political violence as justice.

American professor Herbert Marcuse made this logic explicit in “Repressive Tolerance” in the 1960s. He argued that “tolerance” itself only served oppressors, and that silencing opponents of the left was a moral duty. He stopped short of calling for bloodshed—but his framework made the step to violence all too small.

Today’s identity politics simply works through the consequences of Marcuse’s script. “Oppressed and oppressor” is how we divide society. And you can define almost anyone as “the oppressor.” Classmates, political opponents, and even parents are cast as enemies. Rage becomes virtue. Political violence becomes justice.

This helps explain why Iryna’s killer believed his act was acceptable. It also helps explain how someone could see the assassination of Charlie Kirk not just as permissible, but as virtuous.

Marxism in Our Schools

The most disturbing part is that this framework is not confined to radical academics or activists. It is being actively taught in our schools.

The idea is simple—easier to understand and teach than virtue—and it is deeply seductive.

When a teacher introduces Marxist analysis, it feels like sharing a secret. Suddenly, teacher and student are “in” on something together—a hidden truth about how the world really works. That dynamic transforms the relationship.

Classroom management becomes easier. Students enjoy lessons that make them feel clever, even heroic: You and I see the truth, while the world out there is blind or corrupt. But the price of that intimacy is enormous. Once students buy into this “you and me against the world” dynamic, it becomes much harder for them to listen to anyone who is not “on their side.” Teachers become allies—including against parents.

This is how education cultivates political violence instead of virtue. We have seen what happens when children are raised this way. In Cyprus, whole generations were taught to see their neighbours as enemies. The result was decades of recurring conflict.

The same seeds are being planted here, in our own schools, under the banner of “equity” and “critical thinking.”

Once young people accept this worldview, they no longer see opponents as neighbours or fellow citizens. They see enemies. And once that shift occurs, political violence no longer shocks them. It can be rationalized—even praised.

Ending Political Violence

The crisis we face is not about weapons. Iryna Zarutska’s murderer carried a knife. Charlie Kirk’s assassin used a gun. Different tools, same logic: Both believed their violence was righteous.

That script is not picked up by accident. It is taught. It is reinforced every time a classroom divides the world into “oppressors” and “oppressed.” It is strengthened every time students are told that to silence or punish opponents is to do justice.

We will not end political violence until we root out the Marxist framework that legitimizes it. Education must once again teach virtue: to love truth, to hate injustice, and to direct courage against genuine threats to the common good.

Only then can we raise a generation ready to defend their neighbours—not destroy them.

It’s time to take Marxism out of schools.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 17:30

Visualizing Global Gold Production By Region

Gold remains one of the world’s most valuable natural resources, central to everything from central bank reserves to jewelry and electronics.

During 2025, the yellow metal set multiple price records, driven by a soft dollar, strong central bank buying and heightened global uncertainty.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist's Niccolo Conte, breaks down global gold production by region in 2024, spotlighting the top-producing countries and their contributions to the region supply landscape.

The data for this visualization comes from the World Gold Council.

Africa Leads Global Output

Africa is the world’s top gold-producing region, generating 1,010 tonnes in 2023. Ghana leads the continent with 141 tonnes, followed by Mali (100 tonnes) and South Africa (99 tonnes).

This dominance reflects the continent’s vast mineral resources, though political and operational challenges continue to affect output in some areas.

China, Russia, and Australia Dominate Nationally

China remains the top national producer with 380 tonnes, followed by Russia at 330 tonnes. These two countries alone account for almost 20% of global output.

Australia follows with 284 tonnes, making it the leading Western gold producer and a cornerstone of Oceania’s 346-tonne total.

The Americas Remain Strong Contributors

North America produced 500 tonnes in 2023, driven by Canada (202 tonnes), the United States (158 tonnes), and Mexico (140 tonnes).

Central and South America added 519 tonnes, led by Peru (137 tonnes), Brazil (84 tonnes), and Colombia (66 tonnes). Combined, the Americas contribute more than one-fifth of global supply.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Charted: The World’s Biggest Oil Producers on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 16:55

Visualizing Global Gold Production By Region

Gold remains one of the world’s most valuable natural resources, central to everything from central bank reserves to jewelry and electronics.

During 2025, the yellow metal set multiple price records, driven by a soft dollar, strong central bank buying and heightened global uncertainty.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist's Niccolo Conte, breaks down global gold production by region in 2024, spotlighting the top-producing countries and their contributions to the region supply landscape.

The data for this visualization comes from the World Gold Council.

Africa Leads Global Output

Africa is the world’s top gold-producing region, generating 1,010 tonnes in 2023. Ghana leads the continent with 141 tonnes, followed by Mali (100 tonnes) and South Africa (99 tonnes).

This dominance reflects the continent’s vast mineral resources, though political and operational challenges continue to affect output in some areas.

China, Russia, and Australia Dominate Nationally

China remains the top national producer with 380 tonnes, followed by Russia at 330 tonnes. These two countries alone account for almost 20% of global output.

Australia follows with 284 tonnes, making it the leading Western gold producer and a cornerstone of Oceania’s 346-tonne total.

The Americas Remain Strong Contributors

North America produced 500 tonnes in 2023, driven by Canada (202 tonnes), the United States (158 tonnes), and Mexico (140 tonnes).

Central and South America added 519 tonnes, led by Peru (137 tonnes), Brazil (84 tonnes), and Colombia (66 tonnes). Combined, the Americas contribute more than one-fifth of global supply.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Charted: The World’s Biggest Oil Producers on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 16:55

Charlie Kirk Assassination Suspect Lived With Transgender Partner, Discord Denies Use

While the left oscillates between celebrating Charlie Kirk's murder and insisting the suspect, Tyler Robinson, is a conservative, today we learn that Robinson was living with a transgender partner who was in the process of transitioning from male to female, Fox News' Brooke Singman first reported. 

The individual is now "fully cooperating with the FBI" on its investigation into Kirk's assassination. 

According to Singman, "the FBI had texts and other communications between Robinson and the individual that helped FBI authorities solidify that Robinson was indeed the shooter."

EXCLUSIVE: Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson lived with his transgender partner, sources tell me.

The individual, who is a male transitioning to a female, is fully cooperating with the FBI.

Sources tell me the FBI had texts and other communications between Robinson and the…

— Brooke Singman (@BrookeSingman) September 13, 2025

On Friday, federal and state authorities revealed in a press conference that a "roomate" cooperating with their investigation told them about communications from a contact named "Tyler," which described bullet casings similar to those found at the scene of the murder, along with the "need to retrieve a rifle from a drop point."

The Daily Mail has identified the roommate as Lance Twiggs, who showed police texts from Robinson:

When investigators contacted the roommate, he said Robinson “made a joke on Discord,” a social messaging app, which caused law enforcement to ask him to show them the messages, according to an arrest affidavit.

The messages from “Tyler” stated a “need to retrieve a rifle from a drop point, leaving the rifle in a bush, messages related to visually watching the area where a rifle was left and a message referring to having left the rifle wrapped in a towel,” the affidavit shows. -NY Post

Other messages "also refer to engraving bullets," and the fact that Tyler's rifle was "unique," according to law enforcement.

"Messages from contact Tyler also mention that he had changed outfits," an affidavit states. 

And what's this? 

The alleged assassin’s roommate/boyfriend, Lance Twiggs (sir._.lancelotte), also appears to be trans/perverted and furry curious. Checks out with the spent shell casing of the bullet that struck Kirk: “*noticed bulge* OwO what’s this?”….

Hypothetically an allusion to what… https://t.co/MA1oSVtgRS pic.twitter.com/grZQkyrg2d

— Seamus Bruner (@seamusbruner) September 13, 2025

Discord Disputes

While investigators say that Robinson was communicating on Discord, Discord says that never happened, and that there's "no evidence that the suspect planned this incident or promoted violence on Discord."

"The messages referenced in recent reporting about planning details do not appear to be Discord messages," the company said, adding "These were communications between the suspect’s roommate and a friend after the shooting, where the roommate was recounting the contents of a note the suspect had left elsewhere.

"We have removed the suspect’s account for violating our off-platform behavior policy.”

*  *  *

*  *  *

Transtifa Problem

As we noted last month following the horrific attack on a Christian school by a transgender mass shooter, America has a "Transtifa" problem.

Andy Ngo, senior editor at The Post Millennial, has covered in-depth for quite some time about the disturbing rise of "trans militancy" across America. 

Ngo's recent report, titled "The Violent Ideology and Lies Fueling Trans Militancy," warns that the transgender mass shooter attack on Christians in Minneapolis last week "wasn't an isolated attack." 

In the last five years alone, several mass shootings have been committed by transgenders or pronoun people: 

• November 19, 2022 – Club Q Nightclub, Colorado Springs, CO

  • Perpetrator: Anderson Lee Aldrich

  • Gender Identity: Non-binary (they/them pronouns, per court documents)

  • Casualties: 5 killed, 19 injured

  • Details: The shooter targeted an LGBTQ+ nightclub. Non-binary identification was stated post-arrest and accepted in legal proceedings.

• March 27, 2023 – The Covenant School, Nashville, TN

  • Perpetrator: Audrey Hale

  • Gender Identity: Transgender (he/him pronouns, identified as male)

  • Casualties: 6 killed (3 children, 3 adults), shooter killed by police

  • Details: The shooter attacked a Christian elementary school, leaving a manifesto referencing gender identity and hormones.

• January 4, 2024 – Perry High School, Perry, IA

  • Perpetrator: Dylan Butler

  • Gender Identity: Alleged genderfluid (he/they pronouns, posted LGBTQ+ symbols)

  • Casualties: 2 killed, 6 injured, shooter died by suicide

  • Details: Friends described Butler as genderfluid, but authorities did not confirm transgender identity.

• February 11, 2024 – Lakewood Church, Houston, TX

  • Perpetrator: Genesse Moreno

  • Gender Identity: Alleged transgender (used male aliases but identified as female)

  • Casualties: 0 killed, 2 injured, shooter killed by police

  • Details: Claims of transgender identity were debunked by authorities.

• August 27, 2025 – Annunciation Catholic School, Minneapolis, MN

  • Perpetrator: Robin Westman

  • Gender Identity: Transgender (she/her pronouns, name changed from Robert to Robin in 2020)

  • Casualties: 2 killed (both children), 18 injured (14 children, 4 adults), shooter died by suicide

  • Details: The shooter expressed admiration for other mass killers and had a documented interest in school shootings.

Earlier this month we carried an article from Jason Curtis Anderson of One City Rising detailing the 'socialist NRA' and the alarming rise of far-left militancy following the Minneapolis shooting. 

In the aftermath, investigators uncovered the shooter's personal journal. On it, a sticker of a gay pride flag emblazoned with an assault rifle and the words "defend equality." That very same flag is also displayed by the Minneapolis chapter of the Socialist Rifle Association (SRA), a self-proclaimed left-wing gun club that advocates armed struggle. Andy Ngo shared the images here.

pic

Say what you will about America's increasingly bitter culture wars, but we cannot ignore the fact that much of the rhetoric surrounding the modern trans movement isn't just about self-defense, but about "fighting back," like this flyer, advocating for a trans day of vengeance. 

Do they have to scream it from the rooftops? pic.twitter.com/D3RLahjtfq

— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) August 29, 2025

What exactly do you think they mean by that? 

The Socialist Rifle Association has more than 50 chapters nationwide, with several states hosting multiple chapters. We've been told for decades that America's great domestic terror threat comes from far-right militias in camo gear. But there is obviously a militant movement on the other side of the spectrum: a growing network of far-left militias preparing for what they themselves call "the revolution."

What say you?

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 15:45

Charlie Kirk Assassination Suspect Lived With Transgender Partner, Discord Denies Use

While the left oscillates between celebrating Charlie Kirk's murder and insisting the suspect, Tyler Robinson, is a conservative, today we learn that Robinson was living with a transgender partner who was in the process of transitioning from male to female, Fox News' Brooke Singman first reported. 

The individual is now "fully cooperating with the FBI" on its investigation into Kirk's assassination. 

According to Singman, "the FBI had texts and other communications between Robinson and the individual that helped FBI authorities solidify that Robinson was indeed the shooter."

EXCLUSIVE: Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson lived with his transgender partner, sources tell me.

The individual, who is a male transitioning to a female, is fully cooperating with the FBI.

Sources tell me the FBI had texts and other communications between Robinson and the…

— Brooke Singman (@BrookeSingman) September 13, 2025

On Friday, federal and state authorities revealed in a press conference that a "roomate" cooperating with their investigation told them about communications from a contact named "Tyler," which described bullet casings similar to those found at the scene of the murder, along with the "need to retrieve a rifle from a drop point."

The Daily Mail has identified the roommate as Lance Twiggs, who showed police texts from Robinson:

When investigators contacted the roommate, he said Robinson “made a joke on Discord,” a social messaging app, which caused law enforcement to ask him to show them the messages, according to an arrest affidavit.

The messages from “Tyler” stated a “need to retrieve a rifle from a drop point, leaving the rifle in a bush, messages related to visually watching the area where a rifle was left and a message referring to having left the rifle wrapped in a towel,” the affidavit shows. -NY Post

Other messages "also refer to engraving bullets," and the fact that Tyler's rifle was "unique," according to law enforcement.

"Messages from contact Tyler also mention that he had changed outfits," an affidavit states. 

And what's this? 

The alleged assassin’s roommate/boyfriend, Lance Twiggs (sir._.lancelotte), also appears to be trans/perverted and furry curious. Checks out with the spent shell casing of the bullet that struck Kirk: “*noticed bulge* OwO what’s this?”….

Hypothetically an allusion to what… https://t.co/MA1oSVtgRS pic.twitter.com/grZQkyrg2d

— Seamus Bruner (@seamusbruner) September 13, 2025

Discord Disputes

While investigators say that Robinson was communicating on Discord, Discord says that never happened, and that there's "no evidence that the suspect planned this incident or promoted violence on Discord."

"The messages referenced in recent reporting about planning details do not appear to be Discord messages," the company said, adding "These were communications between the suspect’s roommate and a friend after the shooting, where the roommate was recounting the contents of a note the suspect had left elsewhere.

"We have removed the suspect’s account for violating our off-platform behavior policy.”

*  *  *

*  *  *

Transtifa Problem

As we noted last month following the horrific attack on a Christian school by a transgender mass shooter, America has a "Transtifa" problem.

Andy Ngo, senior editor at The Post Millennial, has covered in-depth for quite some time about the disturbing rise of "trans militancy" across America. 

Ngo's recent report, titled "The Violent Ideology and Lies Fueling Trans Militancy," warns that the transgender mass shooter attack on Christians in Minneapolis last week "wasn't an isolated attack." 

In the last five years alone, several mass shootings have been committed by transgenders or pronoun people: 

• November 19, 2022 – Club Q Nightclub, Colorado Springs, CO

  • Perpetrator: Anderson Lee Aldrich

  • Gender Identity: Non-binary (they/them pronouns, per court documents)

  • Casualties: 5 killed, 19 injured

  • Details: The shooter targeted an LGBTQ+ nightclub. Non-binary identification was stated post-arrest and accepted in legal proceedings.

• March 27, 2023 – The Covenant School, Nashville, TN

  • Perpetrator: Audrey Hale

  • Gender Identity: Transgender (he/him pronouns, identified as male)

  • Casualties: 6 killed (3 children, 3 adults), shooter killed by police

  • Details: The shooter attacked a Christian elementary school, leaving a manifesto referencing gender identity and hormones.

• January 4, 2024 – Perry High School, Perry, IA

  • Perpetrator: Dylan Butler

  • Gender Identity: Alleged genderfluid (he/they pronouns, posted LGBTQ+ symbols)

  • Casualties: 2 killed, 6 injured, shooter died by suicide

  • Details: Friends described Butler as genderfluid, but authorities did not confirm transgender identity.

• February 11, 2024 – Lakewood Church, Houston, TX

  • Perpetrator: Genesse Moreno

  • Gender Identity: Alleged transgender (used male aliases but identified as female)

  • Casualties: 0 killed, 2 injured, shooter killed by police

  • Details: Claims of transgender identity were debunked by authorities.

• August 27, 2025 – Annunciation Catholic School, Minneapolis, MN

  • Perpetrator: Robin Westman

  • Gender Identity: Transgender (she/her pronouns, name changed from Robert to Robin in 2020)

  • Casualties: 2 killed (both children), 18 injured (14 children, 4 adults), shooter died by suicide

  • Details: The shooter expressed admiration for other mass killers and had a documented interest in school shootings.

Earlier this month we carried an article from Jason Curtis Anderson of One City Rising detailing the 'socialist NRA' and the alarming rise of far-left militancy following the Minneapolis shooting. 

In the aftermath, investigators uncovered the shooter's personal journal. On it, a sticker of a gay pride flag emblazoned with an assault rifle and the words "defend equality." That very same flag is also displayed by the Minneapolis chapter of the Socialist Rifle Association (SRA), a self-proclaimed left-wing gun club that advocates armed struggle. Andy Ngo shared the images here.

pic

Say what you will about America's increasingly bitter culture wars, but we cannot ignore the fact that much of the rhetoric surrounding the modern trans movement isn't just about self-defense, but about "fighting back," like this flyer, advocating for a trans day of vengeance. 

Do they have to scream it from the rooftops? pic.twitter.com/D3RLahjtfq

— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) August 29, 2025

What exactly do you think they mean by that? 

The Socialist Rifle Association has more than 50 chapters nationwide, with several states hosting multiple chapters. We've been told for decades that America's great domestic terror threat comes from far-right militias in camo gear. But there is obviously a militant movement on the other side of the spectrum: a growing network of far-left militias preparing for what they themselves call "the revolution."

What say you?

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 15:45

Ether Vs Bitcoin Treasuries: Which Strategy Is Winning In 2025?

Authored by Dilip Kumar Patairya via BitcoinMagazine.com,

The treasury model: Why corporations and nations hold crypto

In recent years, companies and countries have increasingly included cryptocurrencies in their treasury strategies. Traditionally, corporate treasuries relied on cash, gold or government bonds to maintain value, ensure liquidity and provide financial stability. Governments had gold reserves to back their currencies.

However, cash loses purchasing power. Bonds carry rate and duration risk. Foreign exchange shocks hit balance sheets without warning. Ideally, you want a reserve that holds value, moves fast across borders and plugs into digital rails. That is why Bitcoin, Ether and, in some cases, stablecoins now sit beside cash, gold and T-bills.

For corporations, the brief is simple: hedge inflation, diversify currency exposure, keep 24/7 liquidity and test digital settlement.

For sovereigns, meanwhile, the brief expands to strategic reserves, sanctions resilience and access to neutral, global liquidity. 

Bitcoin treasuries: The digital gold standard

Since its inception, BTC has held a unique position as the first and most well-known cryptocurrency, often referred to as the digital equivalent of gold. It is an appealing option for treasuries looking to safeguard against inflation and risks associated with traditional currencies.

Senator Cynthia Lummis in the US has proposed a bill called the Bitcoin Act. If it becomes a law, the bill would require the US Treasury to acquire 1 million BTC over five years for a federal reserve. Earlier, in March 2025, President Donald Trump announced the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, a reserve asset funded by the US Treasury’s forfeited BTC.

El Salvador gained attention in 2021 by adopting BTC as legal tender, while countries such as Bhutan have quietly included Bitcoin in their reserves. In the corporate world, Strategy is known for continuously acquiring BTC, making it the main asset in its treasury.

Bitcoin offers several advantages. It is highly liquid due to active global markets, scarce because of its limited supply and widely recognized across the financial world. To make earnings with BTC lying idle, you need to pair it with external lending or derivatives strategies. 

While it does have its drawbacks, like price volatility affecting balance sheets, the positives outweigh the negatives.

Did you know? Semler Scientific emulated Strategy but at a smaller scale. The firm added 210 more BTC to its balance sheet, acquiring the additional coins from July 3 to July 16 for approximately $25 million at the time, or an average price of $118,974 each.

Ether treasuries: The programmable alternative

While BTC remains the cornerstone of crypto treasuries, Ether has gained traction as an attractive alternative, particularly after its 2022 shift to proof-of-stake (PoS), known as the Merge. This change reduced energy consumption and introduced staking, which generates annual returns of 3%-5%, making ETH a productive asset unlike BTC. For treasuries, this positions ETH as both a store of value and a source of income.

Ethereum’s ecosystem adds to its value. Through decentralized finance (DeFi), treasuries can access liquidity without selling their holdings. The growing use of tokenized real-world assets, such as bonds or commodities, strengthens Ethereum’s role as a financial platform.

Institutional adoption of ETH is increasing. Companies are starting to hold ETH, and asset managers have introduced Ether-based exchange-traded funds (ETFs) for regulated investment.

Even decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) are using ETH as a reserve to ensure long-term stability.

However, challenges remain. Regulatory uncertainty in major markets, risks related to staking performance and Ethereum’s technical complexity create hurdles. Despite these, in 2025, ETH stands out as a versatile treasury asset, combining value storage, income potential and practical utility.

Did you know? Long before ETH ETFs launched in 2024, institutions gained exposure through Grayscale, showing early institutional faith in Ether.

2025 data: Comparing Bitcoin and Ether treasury holdings

As of Sept. 10, 2025, BTC remains the leading choice, with companies and institutions holding over 1 million BTC. ETH, though less widely held, is gaining popularity, with corporations, DAOs and asset managers increasingly adding ETH to their reserves.

Data from blockchain analytics highlights different strategies: Bitcoin treasury holdings are typically kept idle for long-term storage, while a larger portion of Ether holdings is actively staked, earning steady returns.

As of Sept. 10, 2025, Strategy alone controls approximately 638,460 BTC worth billions in valuation, highlighting a long-term hodl strategy focused on holding rather than generating yield.

The number of listed firms holding BTC grew from 70 in December 2024 to 134 by mid‑2025, accumulating nearly 245,000 BTC.

This difference in returns between Bitcoin and Ether is significant. BTC serves as a stable but passive reserve, while Ether’s 3%-5% staking yields make it a more active, income-generating asset, illustrating the choice between Bitcoin’s reliability and Ether’s growth potential.

Considering ETH reserves, as of Sept. 10, 2025, 73 entities held 4.91 million ETH, worth $21.28 billion. Bitmine Immersion Tech (BMNR) was the top holder of Ether with 2.07 million ETH, worth $9 billion. SharpLink Gaming (SBET) comes second with 837,230,000 ETH, worth $3.7 billion.

What are dual strategies?

As the cryptocurrency market matures, some governments and corporations are adopting a dual treasury strategy by holding both BTC and ETH. This approach combines Bitcoin’s stability and global recognition as a reserve asset with Ether’s potential for generating yield and its programmable features.

Here are two examples of dual treasury strategies.

United States federal government (Strategic Crypto Reserve)

• BTC Reserve: In March 2025, an executive order set up the US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, which holds an estimated 198,000-207,000 BTC (approximately $17 billion-$20 billion), as of Sept. 9, 2025, obtained through seizures and other means.

• ETH allocation: A US Digital Asset Stockpile has been created for non-Bitcoin assets, including Ether. As of Aug. 29, 2025, this stockpile contained approximately 60,000 ETH, worth around $261 million, according to an Arkham Exchange analysis of government-owned addresses.

BitMine Immersion Technologies (BMNR)

• BTC Holdings: BitMine, a company focused on crypto mining and treasury management, maintains a moderate Bitcoin reserve of 192 BTC worth over $21 million, as of Sept. 10, 2025.

• ETH Holdings: As mentioned before, Bitmine Immersion Tech (BMNR) holds 2.07 million ETH, with an estimated value of approximately $9 billion, as of Sept. 10, 2025.

This dual-asset approach highlights BitMine’s shift from solely Bitcoin mining to a diversified crypto reserve strategy. It is now more focused on combining Bitcoin’s value preservation with Ether’s income-generating potential.

Did you know? Institutions are issuing billions of dollars in tokenized government bonds directly on the Ethereum blockchain, intertwining ETH with TradFi.

Which strategy is winning in 2025?

The competition between BTC and ETH treasuries showcases their unique strengths. As of mid-2025, the trend points to a future where treasuries may increasingly adopt both assets.

BTC, for instance, stands out for its stability, widespread trust and global recognition, acting as the crypto world’s “reserve currency.” Its role as digital gold makes it the preferred choice for institutions and nations focused on long-term wealth preservation and straightforward liquidity.

Ether, on the other hand, has gained traction due to its ability to generate income, offer practical utility and support a growing ecosystem of tokenized assets. Treasuries holding ETH can earn 3%-5% annual returns through staking, access liquidity through DeFi and engage in markets for tokenized real-world assets, positioning ETH as an active, income-producing reserve.

The choice depends on goals. Bitcoin suits those prioritizing capital security and established trust, while Ether attracts those seeking growth and income potential. While BTC currently leads in total treasury holdings, ETH is catching up by drawing companies and DAOs that value its programmable financial features.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 15:10

Ether Vs Bitcoin Treasuries: Which Strategy Is Winning In 2025?

Authored by Dilip Kumar Patairya via BitcoinMagazine.com,

The treasury model: Why corporations and nations hold crypto

In recent years, companies and countries have increasingly included cryptocurrencies in their treasury strategies. Traditionally, corporate treasuries relied on cash, gold or government bonds to maintain value, ensure liquidity and provide financial stability. Governments had gold reserves to back their currencies.

However, cash loses purchasing power. Bonds carry rate and duration risk. Foreign exchange shocks hit balance sheets without warning. Ideally, you want a reserve that holds value, moves fast across borders and plugs into digital rails. That is why Bitcoin, Ether and, in some cases, stablecoins now sit beside cash, gold and T-bills.

For corporations, the brief is simple: hedge inflation, diversify currency exposure, keep 24/7 liquidity and test digital settlement.

For sovereigns, meanwhile, the brief expands to strategic reserves, sanctions resilience and access to neutral, global liquidity. 

Bitcoin treasuries: The digital gold standard

Since its inception, BTC has held a unique position as the first and most well-known cryptocurrency, often referred to as the digital equivalent of gold. It is an appealing option for treasuries looking to safeguard against inflation and risks associated with traditional currencies.

Senator Cynthia Lummis in the US has proposed a bill called the Bitcoin Act. If it becomes a law, the bill would require the US Treasury to acquire 1 million BTC over five years for a federal reserve. Earlier, in March 2025, President Donald Trump announced the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, a reserve asset funded by the US Treasury’s forfeited BTC.

El Salvador gained attention in 2021 by adopting BTC as legal tender, while countries such as Bhutan have quietly included Bitcoin in their reserves. In the corporate world, Strategy is known for continuously acquiring BTC, making it the main asset in its treasury.

Bitcoin offers several advantages. It is highly liquid due to active global markets, scarce because of its limited supply and widely recognized across the financial world. To make earnings with BTC lying idle, you need to pair it with external lending or derivatives strategies. 

While it does have its drawbacks, like price volatility affecting balance sheets, the positives outweigh the negatives.

Did you know? Semler Scientific emulated Strategy but at a smaller scale. The firm added 210 more BTC to its balance sheet, acquiring the additional coins from July 3 to July 16 for approximately $25 million at the time, or an average price of $118,974 each.

Ether treasuries: The programmable alternative

While BTC remains the cornerstone of crypto treasuries, Ether has gained traction as an attractive alternative, particularly after its 2022 shift to proof-of-stake (PoS), known as the Merge. This change reduced energy consumption and introduced staking, which generates annual returns of 3%-5%, making ETH a productive asset unlike BTC. For treasuries, this positions ETH as both a store of value and a source of income.

Ethereum’s ecosystem adds to its value. Through decentralized finance (DeFi), treasuries can access liquidity without selling their holdings. The growing use of tokenized real-world assets, such as bonds or commodities, strengthens Ethereum’s role as a financial platform.

Institutional adoption of ETH is increasing. Companies are starting to hold ETH, and asset managers have introduced Ether-based exchange-traded funds (ETFs) for regulated investment.

Even decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) are using ETH as a reserve to ensure long-term stability.

However, challenges remain. Regulatory uncertainty in major markets, risks related to staking performance and Ethereum’s technical complexity create hurdles. Despite these, in 2025, ETH stands out as a versatile treasury asset, combining value storage, income potential and practical utility.

Did you know? Long before ETH ETFs launched in 2024, institutions gained exposure through Grayscale, showing early institutional faith in Ether.

2025 data: Comparing Bitcoin and Ether treasury holdings

As of Sept. 10, 2025, BTC remains the leading choice, with companies and institutions holding over 1 million BTC. ETH, though less widely held, is gaining popularity, with corporations, DAOs and asset managers increasingly adding ETH to their reserves.

Data from blockchain analytics highlights different strategies: Bitcoin treasury holdings are typically kept idle for long-term storage, while a larger portion of Ether holdings is actively staked, earning steady returns.

As of Sept. 10, 2025, Strategy alone controls approximately 638,460 BTC worth billions in valuation, highlighting a long-term hodl strategy focused on holding rather than generating yield.

The number of listed firms holding BTC grew from 70 in December 2024 to 134 by mid‑2025, accumulating nearly 245,000 BTC.

This difference in returns between Bitcoin and Ether is significant. BTC serves as a stable but passive reserve, while Ether’s 3%-5% staking yields make it a more active, income-generating asset, illustrating the choice between Bitcoin’s reliability and Ether’s growth potential.

Considering ETH reserves, as of Sept. 10, 2025, 73 entities held 4.91 million ETH, worth $21.28 billion. Bitmine Immersion Tech (BMNR) was the top holder of Ether with 2.07 million ETH, worth $9 billion. SharpLink Gaming (SBET) comes second with 837,230,000 ETH, worth $3.7 billion.

What are dual strategies?

As the cryptocurrency market matures, some governments and corporations are adopting a dual treasury strategy by holding both BTC and ETH. This approach combines Bitcoin’s stability and global recognition as a reserve asset with Ether’s potential for generating yield and its programmable features.

Here are two examples of dual treasury strategies.

United States federal government (Strategic Crypto Reserve)

• BTC Reserve: In March 2025, an executive order set up the US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, which holds an estimated 198,000-207,000 BTC (approximately $17 billion-$20 billion), as of Sept. 9, 2025, obtained through seizures and other means.

• ETH allocation: A US Digital Asset Stockpile has been created for non-Bitcoin assets, including Ether. As of Aug. 29, 2025, this stockpile contained approximately 60,000 ETH, worth around $261 million, according to an Arkham Exchange analysis of government-owned addresses.

BitMine Immersion Technologies (BMNR)

• BTC Holdings: BitMine, a company focused on crypto mining and treasury management, maintains a moderate Bitcoin reserve of 192 BTC worth over $21 million, as of Sept. 10, 2025.

• ETH Holdings: As mentioned before, Bitmine Immersion Tech (BMNR) holds 2.07 million ETH, with an estimated value of approximately $9 billion, as of Sept. 10, 2025.

This dual-asset approach highlights BitMine’s shift from solely Bitcoin mining to a diversified crypto reserve strategy. It is now more focused on combining Bitcoin’s value preservation with Ether’s income-generating potential.

Did you know? Institutions are issuing billions of dollars in tokenized government bonds directly on the Ethereum blockchain, intertwining ETH with TradFi.

Which strategy is winning in 2025?

The competition between BTC and ETH treasuries showcases their unique strengths. As of mid-2025, the trend points to a future where treasuries may increasingly adopt both assets.

BTC, for instance, stands out for its stability, widespread trust and global recognition, acting as the crypto world’s “reserve currency.” Its role as digital gold makes it the preferred choice for institutions and nations focused on long-term wealth preservation and straightforward liquidity.

Ether, on the other hand, has gained traction due to its ability to generate income, offer practical utility and support a growing ecosystem of tokenized assets. Treasuries holding ETH can earn 3%-5% annual returns through staking, access liquidity through DeFi and engage in markets for tokenized real-world assets, positioning ETH as an active, income-producing reserve.

The choice depends on goals. Bitcoin suits those prioritizing capital security and established trust, while Ether attracts those seeking growth and income potential. While BTC currently leads in total treasury holdings, ETH is catching up by drawing companies and DAOs that value its programmable financial features.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 15:10

Trump Backs Off Promise To Sanction Russia, Issues Ultimatum To NATO

President Trump's prior two week deadline where he vowed to make a big decision on Russia has come and gone. He's now backing off the prior threat to impose heightened sanctions on Russia, including secondary sanctions which would seek to punish its trading partners, particularly China and India.

There's been no peace agreement, and the latest out of both Russian and Ukrainian leaders suggests negotiations are effectively dead at this point, as Moscow forces keep advancing in the east village by village. There's been little to no momentum from the Alaska summit with Putin.

On Saturday Trump made clear in a long Truth Social post that he's backing off pulling the trigger on new sanctions, and listed things NATO members would have to do for it to happen. He set some new standards which are very unlikely to met by all NATO countries - or rather a significant ultimatum. 

Momentum has waned in the weeks after the historic Trump-Putin summit.

All NATO countries must stop buying oil from Russia and in parallel agree to sweeping tariffs on China, Trump explained Saturday, throwing down the gauntlet. 

"I am ready to do major Sanctions on Russia when all NATO Nations have agreed, and started, to do the same thing, and when all NATO Nations STOP BUYING OIL FROM RUSSIA," Trump wrote Social Saturday morning.

He described his words as a letter to America's allies and to the world: "As you know, NATO’S commitment to WIN has been far less than 100%, and the purchase of Russian Oil, by some, has been shocking," he continued.

"China has a strong control, and even grip, over Russia, and these powerful Tariffs will break that grip," Trump's 'letter' continues. He then made his position clear that tariffs on China would "be of great help in ENDING this deadly, but RIDICULOUS, WAR."

China and India are of course at this moment the two biggest importers of Russian oil, in that order, but what's less well known is that NATO member Turkey is the third largest. Ironically, Turkey maintains the second largest military in NATO, next to the United States.

It continues, alongside Orban's Hungary and Fico's Slovakia, to be a thorn in the side of 'NATO unity' regarding Russian energy imports. According to one recent energy industry study:

In the first half of 2024, Turkey has risen from being the 14th largest buyer of Russian crude oil before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, to the third largest importer.

In the same period, three Turkish refineries have used EUR 1.2 bn worth of Russian crude to create oil products that are then imported by G7+ countries.

Imports of refined oil products from Turkey’s STAR Refinery, Tupras Izmit Refinery, and the Tupras Aliaga Izmir Refinery have generated an estimated EUR 750 mn in tax revenues for the Kremlin to finance its brutal war on Ukraine. 

The Russian oil and gas sector is a crucial revenue stream for the Kremlin, contributing 32% to the federal budget in 2023, a decrease from 42% in 2022. Furthermore, the Kremlin allocated a third of all 2024 spending on the military.

OIL MARKET: Donald Trump sets tall conditions to impose any sanctions on Russia. It’s a cynic tactic as he knows well that others won’t accept.

But, and it pains me to say, he’s not 100% wrong: Europe continues buying Russian oil and natural gas. pic.twitter.com/g8DytLUB4D

— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) September 13, 2025

This means that getting all of NATO on the same page regarding both Russian energy imports and China tariffs would be all but impossible.

Trump additionally pointed out in his fresh message, "This is not TRUMP’S WAR (it would never have started if I was President!), it is Biden’s and Zelenskyy’s WAR. I am only here to help stop it."

*  *  *

Reminder: Secure your order by Sunday night for Wednesday delivery

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 14:35

Economic Measurement & The Mirage Of Exactness

Authored by Peter C. Earle via the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER)

In contentious political environments, economic data rarely stand as objective measures. They are transformed into talking points and wielded to justify policies as much as to describe reality. A monthly jobs report, a quarterly GDP release, or an inflation figure splashed across financial headlines is treated with the solemnity of a laboratory result. Markets react, central bankers pontificate, and legislators posture—all on the basis of a handful of daunting numbers. Yet beneath the veneer of rigor lies a reality that economists have long known but the public too rarely hears: economic measurement is messy, contingent, and riven with flaws. To take these figures as seriously as one might an engineering calculation is to misunderstand their very nature.

The Concept-Measurement Gap

Unlike the physical sciences, where experiments can be replicated under controlled conditions, economic data arise from millions of decentralized transactions, informal exchanges, and shifting definitions. The “measurement gap” describes the yawning space between what we wish to know and what our tools can actually capture.

For instance, gross domestic product (GDP) is intended as a comprehensive measure of economic output. Yet among other shortcomings it fails to account for the shadow economy and values government services at cost rather than output. Likewise, productivity metrics often rely on assumptions about hours worked that blur the line between logged time and effective effort. The gap is structural: We seek neat aggregates in a world of fluid, heterogeneous activity.

Periodicity Versus Accuracy

Part of the problem stems from the tradeoff between the regularity of data publication and the accuracy of the estimates. The public and policymakers demand frequent updates. Employment figures are released monthly, GDP quarterly, inflation monthly. This rhythm provides a semblance of continuous monitoring, but it comes at a cost. Initial estimates are often based on partial surveys, extrapolations, or seasonal adjustment algorithms that rely on historical patterns. As more information arrives, revisions follow—sometimes minor, sometimes seismic. GDP growth in a given quarter may be reported at 2.5 percent, only to be revised months later to 1.2 or 3.4 percent. Markets and pundits rarely revisit their earlier pronouncements; the initial number is what shapes expectations and headlines. In this sense, economic statistics resemble a kind of Heisenberg problem: the very act of requiring frequent measurement reduces their reliability, and yet without regularity, the public and policymakers would demand answers from even shakier conjecture.

If employment or inflation data were released only quarterly, the estimates might gain in accuracy, but each observation would capture a far larger temporal gap—implying greater structural and cyclical changes between each data point. Conversely, producing employment or price measures weekly, or even daily, would rapidly push reported figures toward statistical noise. Shorter intervals would yield estimates that rapidly approach randomness, while longer intervals risk creating more accurate but discontinuous, contextless “islands” of spaced-out information with limited practical application.

The False Allure of Precision

The inclination to take economic statistics with engineering-like seriousness is understandable. Numbers carry authority and convey expertise at work. A decimal place conveys credibility. When unemployment is reported at 4.2 percent, the impression is that it is truly 4.2 percent. In reality, margins of error of half a percentage point or more are common, and survey nonresponse, definitional ambiguities, and model-based imputations mean that the figure could as reasonably be 3.8 or 4.7 percent.

This tendency to misinterpret approximations as finely measured truth is neatly captured in an old joke: a man was once asked how old the pyramids were. He confidently answered, “Exactly 4,504 years old.” When pressed on how he came up with such a specific figure, he explained, “Well, four years ago someone told me they were built 4,500 years ago.” The absurdity lies in mistaking a rough estimate for an exact data point—an error that gives the illusion of exactness while straying further from accuracy.

Moreover, concepts evolve. Inflation indices now incorporate hedonic adjustments, imputing quality improvements into price data. A smartphone that costs the same as last year but now has a sharper camera is treated as “cheaper” in real terms. This may be defensible, but it is hardly intuitive—and it introduces further scope for both debate and misinterpretation.

Bureaucratic Incentives and Political Objectives

Even if economic measurement were a purely technical endeavor, it would remain prone to error. But the reality is that numbers are produced in a political environment. Statistical agencies face resource constraints, pressures to maintain credibility, and the ever-present possibility of political interference. Bureaucrats, like all individuals, respond to incentives: budgets, prestige, or the desire to avoid controversy. Meanwhile, political figures have every reason to weaponize statistics.

A favorable inflation print will be heralded as evidence of prudent stewardship; an uptick in unemployment will be attributed to opponents’ policies or to global shocks conveniently beyond control. Numbers do not speak for themselves. They are framed, spun, and selectively emphasized.

Variability Beyond Malfeasance

It is tempting to view puzzling fluctuations in economic data as the result of manipulation. A GDP figure that surprises on the upside, or a sudden revision to employment data, can look suspicious to the cynical observer. But the truth is usually more mundane and more troubling: the sheer multiplicity of errors, approximations, and compromises in measurement more than accounts for the volatility.

Sampling error, late survey responses, benchmark revisions, and definitional tweaks combine to create a statistical fog that obscures as much as it reveals.

Caution Is the Watchword

None of this is to argue that measurement is futile. Imperfect statistics are arguably better than flying blind. But a greater humility is warranted in how we interpret them. Economic figures should be seen as estimates, surrounded by wide confidence intervals and conditioned on assumptions. Numbers are best treated as fuzzy inputs toward decisions, not substitutes for them. Headline numbers must be treated with considerable caution, especially the first release of any major statistic. Revisions can, and often do, change the story. Second, recognize that the authority of numbers does not make them apolitical. They are generated in bureaucracies, filtered through political incentives, and presented in ways that serve narratives; sometimes several at the same time.

In the end, the multiplicity of errors and compromises in measurement explain far more of the wild and suspicious variations than do any grand conspiracy theories. Numbers are indispensable, but nevertheless incomplete, persnickety guides. To treat them as precise representations of the current state of a phenomenon, rather than rough maps of a shifting and inherently complex terrain, is to demand of economics what only the hard sciences can provide.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 14:00