Finance and Economy Background

Global Economy,
Curated & Summarized.

The most critical economic and financial news from around the world. From Wall Street to Tokyo, expert sources delivered to you instantly.

North America
Fortune

China sees the yuan vs. dollar rivalry like Pepsi vs. Coke, expert says — ‘never the market leader, but serviceable in a pinch’

Heavy is the head that wears the crown, and contrary to popular belief, Beijing doesn’t want the yuan to dethrone the dollar as the world’s dominant currency, according to a top China scholar. While China has been trying to internationalize the yuan, also known as the renminbi, it doesn’t want the obligations that come with being the global reserve currency, Zongyuan Zoe Liu, senior fellow for China studies at the Council on Foreign Relation, wrote in Foreign Affairs this month. To truly take the dollar’s place would require open capital markets, which would threaten the Communist Party’s control over who gets capital and how, she explained. That’s as many elites rely on offshore dollar holdings as a type of insurance against domestic political persecution. Since China actually prefers to keep the dollar on top, the real reason for promoting the yuan abroad is to prevent the U.S. from weaponizing the financial system against it, Liu added, similar to how Russia was shut out after it invaded Ukraine in 2022. A yuan network that’s international enough, even without being dominant, could bypass any dollar-based sanctions the U.S. might impose in the future. “Placing a respectable second, or even a consequential third, would suffice to break the dollar’s effective monopoly and constrain the United States’ ability to impose financial sanctions unilaterally, while saving China the effort and cost of sustaining currency supremacy,” she said. “From Beijing’s perspective, the mission is to establish the renminbi as the Pepsi to the dollar’s Coca-Cola: never the market leader, but serviceable in a pinch and more than capable of keeping the dominant incumbent honest.” (For what it’s worth, Pepsi has actually fallen further behind Coke in the cola wars and was dealt a major symbolic defeat recently when KFC said it would replace PepsiCo soft drinks with Coca-Cola’s products at its 3,700 U.S. restaurants.) So far, China facilitates renminbi use among firms in more than a hundred countries and across a growing array of commodity markets. As of June, its Cross-Border Interbank Payment System had 1,829 participants who could send payments to more than 5,200 banks in 191 countries. But that’s just a small fraction of what the U.S.-dominated system processes, Liu said, adding that a global currency also entails pricing, financing, risk transfer, and reinvestment. Chinese exporters still invoice in dollars and convert them to yuan just before brining them into China. But Beijing is promoting “China prices,” or yuan benchmarks on domestic commodity exchanges and has succeeded with lithium, she noted. The financing stage is gaining momentum too as Chinese banks have more than doubled their yuan lending to overseas borrowers between 2023 and mid-2026. The People’s Bank of China has also reached currency swap agreements with 32 foreign central banks and monetary authorities.

China sees the yuan vs. dollar rivalry like Pepsi vs. Coke, expert says — ‘never the market leader, but serviceable in a pinch’
North America
Fortune

If California undid its ‘original sin’ and matched Texas on taxing property, it would raise more revenue than the billionaire tax, economists say

California voters will decide on Proposition 40 soon, but looming over the controversial billionaire wealth tax proposal is another state ballot measure from nearly 50 years ago. In 1978, voters approved Proposition 13, which capped property taxes at just 1% of assessed value, limited annual hikes to 2%, and allowed reassessments to market value only after sales or substantial renovations. It came amid a wider tax revolt leading up to Ronald Reagan’s election as president and an era of conservative governance in America. After Prop 13’s passage, the state had to find other ways to raise more revenue and relied more on taxing incomes, including capital gains. California now has the most progressive income-tax structure in the country with a top marginal rate of 13.3%. When combined with federal income tax rates, that can send the total to more than 50%. The top 1% of earners account for up to half of state revenue, though it also means state coffers are volatile and swing on stock market returns. At the same time, the ultra-wealthy often don’t receive much income and instead leverage assets to finance their lifestyles, avoiding some taxes. Now enter the billionaire tax, which calls for residents worth more than $1 billion to pay a one-time tax equivalent to 5% of their assets. The union pushing Prop 40 has said the wealth tax could raise $100 billion in revenue and help offset federal cuts to health spending. Supporters point to the AI boom and say California’s ultra-rich would still be among the world’s wealthiest. Opponents have warned about the impact the tax could have on economic growth and startups. They have also said it would force founders to sell big pieces of their companies and eventually cause the wealthy to flee to another state, resulting in a net loss of revenue over time. If California is looking for a large source of undertaxed wealth, “a much better, bigger target lies right beneath their feet,” according to Princeton economist Owen Zidar and University of Chicago Booth School of Business economist Eric Zwick, authors of the book The Everywhere Millionaire. “The original sin underlying California’s tax structure is Prop 13, the 1978 law that rewrote the rules of property ownership,” they wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed. “Getting rid of it would be a more efficient and durable way to make the rich pay their fair share.” Prop 13 also contributed to rapidly increasing home values, which have risen faster than property taxes. As a result, California homeowners pay an average of just 0.8% tax on their property, Zidar and Zwick estimated, generating $100 billion in revenue in fiscal 2025. By contrast, Texas homeowners pay 2% on average. If California matched Texas, overall residential property tax revenue would more than double, while also easing home prices by around 13%, they added. To be sure, property taxes in Texas have stirred their own voter revolt during the midterm election season. While the state doesn’t levy income taxes, Texans complain that the overall tax burden remains onerous due to property taxes, which are levied by local governments as well.

If California undid its ‘original sin’ and matched Texas on taxing property, it would raise more revenue than the billionaire tax, economists say
North America
Fortune

AI boom hits a wall on Wall Street as OpenAI cuts fundraising target while Meta gets a credit warning over its cash flow, spending and monetization

The seemingly endless gusher of capital that’s been showered on Silicon Valley during the AI boom may be coming to an end soon as Wall Street pushes back on massive spending plans. Following a brutal selloff in tech stocks over the past week, OpenAI slashed the target on its latest fundraising round to $20 billion from $30 billion, sources told the Financial Times. That also cut its expected valuation to $1.25 trillion from $1.4 trillion. The funding round was also upstaged by Anthropic, according to the report, as OpenAI’s arch-rival prepares to go public next month. Ahead of its IPO, Anthropic filed an S-1 on Monday that showed revenue has soared and its cash flow turned positive in the first half of this year. The timing couldn’t have been worse. Quarterly earnings reports from hyperscalers this week spooked investors. Alphabet saw its cash flow sink deeper into negative territory in the third quarter, with the Google parent also joining Meta and Amazon in charging ahead with massive spending plans. On Thursday, Alphabet fell about 12%, its worst day on record. To be sure, there were other positive signs as well, in addition to Anthropic’s bullish S-1. Microsoft reported strong cloud growth and stayed cash flow positive, though it said its capital spending will accelerate, while AI chip maker SK Hynix blew away earnings forecasts. But the narrative had already turned bearish, especially after AI debt fears sent shares and bonds of “neocloud” companies tumbling earlier this month. At the same time, OpenAI was seeking more capital just as other AI giants tapped financial markets heavily. This past week alone, Elon Musk said SpaceX closed $40 billion in debt financing, Meta announced plans to raise $95 billion in equity, and Microsoft raised $25 billion in a bond sale. The prospect of hyperscalers continuing to hemorrhage funds was too much for S&P Global, which cut its outlook on Meta to “negative” from “stable” late Friday, citing negative cash flow and uncertainty around capital expenditure ​plans. The credit ratings agency maintained Meta at AA- but warned ⁠the social media leader’s leverage could top 1.0x as soon as 2027, which is the downgrade threshold for the current rating. That’s up from about 0.1x in 2025 and primarily reflects its strategy of leasing data center capacity rather than from its debt issuance. Meanwhile, S&P sees Meta’s capex reaching $140 billion this year, topping $225 billion in 2027, hitting $252 billion in 2028, and then flattening out from there. As a result, it expects free operating cash flow to remain negative: -$22 billion this year, -$71 billion in 2027, and -$39 billion in 2028. Of course, other hyperscalers are spending heavily and running cash deficits, but S&P also said Meta’s ability to monetize its AI investments is more limited than that of its peers. “While we believe the company intends to monetize these investments via improved advertising tools that support faster ad revenue growth, as well as from the development of new revenue streams stemming from its introduction of agentic apps such as Muse, it is unclear when these revenue streams will generate material contributions that exceed their rising costs over the next few years,” S&P said.

AI boom hits a wall on Wall Street as OpenAI cuts fundraising target while Meta gets a credit warning over its cash flow, spending and monetization
North America
CNBC Finance

Automakers like Rivian and Ford are ‘democratizing 3D printing’ to reduce costs and increase speed

DETROIT — Automakers including Ford Motor and Rivian Automotive are leaning into a new type of manufacturing line: 3D printing. Manufacturers say it's helping them reduce costs and increase speed. The technology has been around for decades, but it's becoming more commoditized in the automotive industry, with 3D printers used to create everything from vehicle parts and accessories to tools for assembly plants and testing units for research and development labs. "At this point, we don't have a choice but to scale up and begin using it through all factions of Rivian," Jared Beck, head of Rivian's additive manufacturing, told CNBC during a tour of the automaker's expansive 3D-printing operations in suburban Detroit. "We're going to be democratizing 3D printing for the entire company." Also known as additive manufacturing, 3D printing can create three-dimensional objects from digital designs by dispensing material layer by layer, much like a traditional printer does with ink on paper. Instead of ink, the machines use a wide variety of materials such as plastics, composites, ceramics and even metals. Printers can range from hundreds of dollars for hobby-like devices to hundreds of thousands of dollars for specialty equipment, depending on how big the product being produced is and the material it needs. They can produce individual pieces or hundreds of smaller parts in a batch using powders and resins. Rivian said it has spent more than $5 million on 3D-printing machines, with the cost of materials for the operations growing to about $1.7 million annually. Beck said despite the costs, the machines typically pay for themselves within a year. He said the technology helps lower supplier tooling costs, streamline logistics expenses and cut production times for parts from weeks to days, if not hours. "It's well in the millions [for savings], but the main thing is speed for Rivian," Beck said. The all-electric vehicle company's latest expansion of 3D printing includes adding new machines that can build flexible silicone parts as well as installing a bay of machines at its plant in Normal, Illinois, for employees to print parts on demand. "3D prints should be readily available for every engineer so that they can make a part and get it in their hands as soon as possible," Beck said. Rivian has also used the technology for electric-motor models for fluid testing, creating screw guides for tooling and stamping press inserts and some production parts, including trim pieces to fill gaps in some early builds. There's a similar push underway at larger, more-established automakers like Ford and its crosstown rival General Motors, which have used 3D printing for many years, including in their massive assembly plants.

Automakers like Rivian and Ford are ‘democratizing 3D printing’ to reduce costs and increase speed
North America
Yahoo Finance

OpenAI IPO Valuation Target Reportedly Trimmed By $150B After Nasdaq 100 Registers Worst Month Since March 2025 Following Brutal Tech Sell-Off

OpenAI has reportedly cut its target for its latest funding round by $10 billion as the ChatGPT maker faces a tougher market backdrop and growing investor scrutiny of AI spending. According to a report by The Financial Times citing people familiar with the matter, OpenAI is now seeking about $20 billion at a $1.25 trillion valuation, down from its earlier target of $30 billion at a $1.4 trillion valuation. OpenAI had been seeking to raise $30 billion at a $1.4 trillion valuation, after pointing to a sharp increase in revenue since July to justify nearly doubling its valuation from $852 billion. But the company has since tempered its ambitions, with the report stating that OpenAI had set Friday as the deadline for investors to commit to the round. The initial close was expected to bring in less than $20 billion after some investors reduced their allocations, according to the report. A consortium of investment groups from the United Arab Emirates, including state-backed technology fund MGX, is expected to be the largest participant. As part of the deal, OpenAI would have an option to lease newly developed computing power in the region, according to the report. Founders Fund, Coatue, Sequoia Capital and Andreessen Horowitz, along with SoftBank, also plan to participate, the report said. OpenAI raised $122 billion in March. The fundraising reset comes after a sharp sell-off in technology stocks and growing concerns about the pace and scale of AI spending. The tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 fell 3.5% Friday, while the index registered its worst month since March 2025, adding pressure to companies tied to the AI trade. The Nasdaq 100 index closed lower by 6.65% in October, its worst month since March 2025 when it fell 7.69%. The report added that one OpenAI backer said that the fundraising process had begun amid enthusiasm for AI but was caught by a sharp reversal in the market. The company is also facing competition for investor attention from Anthropic, which is preparing for an IPO next month at a valuation of $1.5 trillion or more. The Anthropic IPO could add another complication for OpenAI as investors weigh the two AI companies at the same time. During an interview with CNBC, Yorkville Ives partner Dan Ives described the environment around Anthropic as a “perfect storm moment,” saying the company is “so key to this AI revolution build out.”

OpenAI IPO Valuation Target Reportedly Trimmed By $150B After Nasdaq 100 Registers Worst Month Since March 2025 Following Brutal Tech Sell-Off
North America
Fortune

Our AI agent experience: we scrapped the multiple $60,000 salary marketing jobs and hired one person at a far higher salary

In July, Accenture published guidance for companies alarmed by their AI bills. Avoid blanket usage cuts, it said. Don’t tell employees to use less AI. Route work to the cheapest model that does the job. It also noted that in nearly every deployment it had examined, including its own, fewer than 10% of users and workflows drive the vast majority of the bill. On Oct. 1, according to an internal announcement obtained by 404 Media, Accenture began centrally funding $29 a month per person toward Claude; anything above that had to be charged to a project. Internal messages seen by the publication show employees who had been spending $500 to $1,000 a month, and one who said their access was revoked entirely. Accenture says reporting that it has put a firm limit on its people’s access to AI tools is incorrect. Take the company at its word, but the distinction is real, and the exposure is real: fixed-price contracts are more than 65% of Accenture’s bookings, so token costs land on its own margin. But from where an employee sits, the distinction is thin, and Accenture’s own paper records the pressure. In some of its environments, it wrote, requests to lift individual spending limits arrive by the hundreds each day. Companies everywhere are asking the same question: how many tokens should we give each employee? It is the wrong question, and it is leading managers to decisions they will regret. The right question is what a finished piece of work costs, before AI and after. The answer is usually so lopsided that the argument ends there. Here is an answer. One of our portfolio companies needed a new website. The agency quote was $60,000. Instead, three people from the business team — none of whom had ever built a website — did it in three days, and the result was better than what the agency proposed. It worked properly on Windows and Mac computers, on iPhones and Android handsets, and on Chinese phones running HarmonyOS — none of which the team knew to ask for. The agents also produced high-resolution versions of the company’s logos, made its marketing material consistent for the first time, and found customer testimonials nobody knew existed, along with awards the company did not know it had won. The tokens cost a few hundred dollars. Here is a second. Preparing a board presentation on a company we wanted to acquire, we asked AI only to reformat the slides. It did that. It also fact-checked them, which we had not requested, and found several material errors. Then it reached the slide carrying our offer price and told us the price was too high, suggesting we cut it by 40%. We had not asked for its opinion. We checked the reasoning and lowered the bid. Consider what this does to hiring. We were about to take on several entry-level marketing people at around $60,000 each. We hired one instead and paid considerably more. That one non-technical person does work the whole group could not have done: designing the company’s collateral and building analytics software to measure our customers’ operations against industry peers. Notice what these have in common. It is not that people worked faster. Three people who could not build a website built one. A marketing hire who does not write software is shipping a software product. The change is not productivity but capability: work that used to require a specialist can increasingly be done by whoever understands the business problem. We should be honest about what that means. Those are jobs that will not exist. One of us has a close friend, a graphic designer, laid off with two colleagues when new owners decided AI could do what the graphics department did. But a company that refuses these tools does not save those jobs. It loses them later anyway, along with its own. So why is everyone capping? Because the bills arrived, they were larger than expected, and almost nobody can guess what an afternoon of their own AI use costs. AI is sold by the token. A token is roughly three-quarters of a word, and everything you send the system and everything it sends back is counted and billed. A million tokens — about 750,000 words, or eight or nine novels — costs between $2 and $8. A typical office worker asking 30 questions a day uses about 1.3 million tokens a month, roughly $6 of usage. That is why software companies sell $25 seats and still make money. Your average employee is not the problem and never was.

Our AI agent experience: we scrapped the multiple $60,000 salary marketing jobs and hired one person at a far higher salary
North America
Fortune

From Karl Marx’s vampire to Warren Buffett’s moat, the crumbling gothic castle has been capitalism’s favorite metaphor for 250 years

Markets are ushering in a particularly gothic Halloween as the AI trade exposes a crumbling aristocratic pile of early 21st century capitalism. Wall Street has been describing itself in castle-adjacent terms for years. Jamie Dimon has long talked to JPMorgan shareholders about the bank’s “fortress balance sheet.” His 2015 letter set aside a section to answer the question of what the phrase even meant. By 2021, he’d added a second castle word, warning that “the moats that protect this company are not particularly deep.” The moat came from Warren Buffett. In a 1999 Fortune article with Carol Loomis, he argued that the key to investing is a company’s competitive advantage and how durable it is, and that the businesses worth owning have wide moats around them. The gothic novel’s favorite picture of danger is a castle falling apart, and for about 250 years the two have traded images: the castle and the moat, the vampire, the creature built in a lab. This Halloween season has them rushing to the front of the conversation, with a two-day rout in tech stocks on Thursday and Friday turning on whether the AI giants’ moats will hold, as gothic horror booms on bookshelves and movie screens. Horror took 15.5% of the domestic box office in 2025, according to The Numbers, and U.S. horror book sales rose 7% through the first nine months of 2025, per Circana BookScan, while adult fiction overall grew just 1%. The New York Times asked Friday why every book is gothic now, with publishers putting the label on everything from family sagas to space operas, and several film critics commenting that Nathan Fielder’s smash-hit business-scandal documentaryYou Can See Everything is a twisted, even gothic romance in the tradition of Alfred Hitchcock. The selling started with Alphabet. The stock fell 12.6% Thursday, wiping out roughly half a trillion dollars in market value, after the Google parent’s quarterly report. Revenue from the core search unit fell short, partly because of the popularity of less-profitable “AI mode” searches and the company burning cash faster than expected. Its free cash flow came in at negative $9.1 billion, against the negative $2.23 billion analysts expected, per FactSet. The S&P 500’s worst performer was software giant ServiceNow, which dropped 27% the same day on slowing revenue growth and disappointing guidance. By Friday morning, it was Amazon’s and Intel’s turn, with Intel down roughly 25% before the opening bell. Big Tech lost nearly $900 billion in market value after another sharp rise in AI spending in the third quarter, the Financial Times calculated. Reddit, whose shares fell more than 22% premarket Friday, is pulling up the drawbridge: it’s moving to a logged-in experience as AI eats search. The irony is spooking investors. AI is eating into the businesses that throw off the cash, and the cash is going into AI anyway. The hyperscalers have raised $326 billion in stock and bonds this year to pay for the build-out, more than triple 2025, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence data. The question underneath it is the one Apollo chief economist Torsten Slok put to clients the morning Alphabet fell. “With AI disruption potentially around the corner, there is a lot of discussion about moats at the moment,” he wrote in his Daily Spark note Thursday. He built on finance professor Aswath Damodaran, the “dean of valuation,” who compiled a list of sources of competitive advantage, including brand strength, switching costs, network effects, cost advantages and legal protection. Then he boiled it down to an AI moat checklist of three questions: does the company own data its rivals can’t get, is its product part of how customers do their jobs every day, and can it charge more without customers walking away? Judging by that third test, the companies selling AI don’t seem to measure up. OpenAI’s new GPT-6.1 Terra model costs up to half as much per token as the version before it. An index from expense-management firm Ramp, which looked at what companies actually pay Anthropic and OpenAI, shows token prices down roughly 35% since the end of June, in what Axios called a price war. The companies paying for AI aren’t getting much back yet, either. In an Oct. 24 note, Slok sent a tremor through Wall Street terminals with an argument that AI “has delivered zero financial payoff to corporate America outside of tech.” Revenue per worker and profit margins are rising for the Magnificent Seven and flat for the rest of the S&P 500, he noted, and mainstream companies are starting to treat token spending as a cost center that weighs on margins rather than a source of growth.

From Karl Marx’s vampire to Warren Buffett’s moat, the crumbling gothic castle has been capitalism’s favorite metaphor for 250 years
North America
Fortune

Ben & Jerry’s CEO: democracy is on the ballot, and business must show up

Ben & Jerry’s is a proud Vermont-based business. We’re a global company, but the U.S. is our home and where we have a long history of campaigning for democracy. We believe that when businesses step up, particularly at moments like this, we can help shift the scales. It’s clear to me, as one of the stewards of this business, that we have a responsibility to help uphold democracy and empower communities to participate in it. It’s the right thing to do, and no business thrives where democracy doesn’t. Any slide toward authoritarianism threatens the economic environment every business depends on. Ben & Jerry’s is built on the model of Linked Prosperity, the belief that the success of a business should not be measured solely by the economic value it creates, but also by the value it creates for the communities it serves. This philosophy is embedded in how we operate because businesses do not exist in a vacuum. They rely on strong, stable communities, and those communities depend on institutions like free and fair elections, which ensure people’s voices are heard and their votes respected. Now, those institutions are under threat, freedom of expression is under attack, and the right to vote is under pressure. Many people feel disconnected from the politics that are supposed to represent them, shut out of decision-making and uncertain if their voices even matter. This work goes back a long way for Ben & Jerry’s. In 2016, our Empower Mint flavor supported voting rights alongside Rev. William Barber II and the North Carolina NAACP; in 2018 we backed Florida’s Amendment 4 campaign to restore voting rights to people with prior felony convictions. More recently, Change Is Brewing and Churn Out the Vote have supported Black voter participation and practical voter information. We have learned a lot along the way from people and organizations who understand these issues better than we do. That has shaped our approach; we’re smart enough to know we don’t know everything, so we work with incredible partners who are working day in and day out on the issues at a grassroots level. The ambition then is to put the reach and resources of Ben & Jerry’s behind their work and bring our fans to it too. I won’t pretend that balancing a social mission with a product and economic mission is easy. Since the beginning there has been debate about what our social mission asks of us and how we put it into practice. Sometimes that tension is uncomfortable, but I have come to believe that there is no progress without tension. The genius of our governance model is that it gives the social mission an equal role. We can balance each part of our three-part mission because it is baked into how we make decisions. That model can sometimes surface and create that tension, but I would rather have that debate than let the mission become something we talk about without really testing ourselves against it. This year, we have worked with our long-term partners at the American Civil Liberties Union to educate voters, help people get ready to vote, and protect their right to do so. Millions have viewed our content and over 175,000 people have taken action with Ben & Jerry’s this election season. Our midterms campaign, supported by our flavor Razz Up!, uses our voice and our ice cream to bring attention to the work of our partners. Following the lead of Black Voters Matter, Community Change and the National Korean American Service & Education Consortium, we have shown up in communities where restrictive voting laws are reinforcing inequality, reaching nearly 10,000 people through Step Razz Up! events in Detroit and Houston and supporting voter engagement events across North Carolina. We have put financial resources behind the work too. Our Scoop Shop initiative, Waffle Lotta Good, raised nearly $100,000 in October for grassroots groups working to protect democracy. Our commitment also stretches beyond this election: our $3 million unrestricted investment in People’s Action Institute will support community organizing well beyond Election Day. In August, on the anniversary of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we took a pointed pun, ‘Fudge Fascism,’ to Washington, D.C. When the stakes are so high, hedged language isn’t going to cut it, and we have always believed that serious issues don’t have to be communicated in ways that feel distant or inaccessible. Razz Up! and our broader pro-democracy work is part of a social mission that has been built into Ben & Jerry’s over decades. We’re able to do this work because of colleagues and partners who challenge us, bring expertise we don’t have, and keep pushing us to live up to the values of this company.

Ben & Jerry’s CEO: democracy is on the ballot, and business must show up
Asia-Pacific
The Straits Times

Crypto shaken after Binance hack; Wilmar discloses sales to firms in haze probe: Markets this week

In this column, ST’s business correspondents unpack the latest developments in Singapore and global markets during the week – and explain what they mean for investors. Bitcoin fell about 5% over 24 hours since the Oct 29 incident, while Ether lost about 5.7%. SINGAPORE – A multibillion-dollar hack at cryptocurrency exchange Binance shook the industry this week, sending prices lower amid concerns over the safety of investors’ assets on trading platforms. Bitcoin fell about 5% over 24 hours since the Oct 29 incident, while Ether lost about 5.7%. Both extended their declines on Oct 30 before recovering some ground. On Nov 1, Bitcoin was trading at around US$77,450, while Ether was US$2,249. About US$6.4 billion worth of cryptocurrencies were stolen on Binance within 30 minutes, with attackers linked to North Korea draining Binance’s internet-connected “hot wallets”, then rushing to exchange stolen stablecoins for cryptocurrencies such as Ether. Unlike stablecoins, whose issuers can freeze assets, Bitcoin and Ether have no central issuer able to block their movement. Approximately US$2.8 billion in stablecoins has been frozen by investigators, law enforcement agencies and stablecoin issuers so far. In a video circulated on social media on Oct 30, Binance co-chief executive Richard Teng said the exchange has been working non-stop to recover the stolen assets, and added that it had reserved more than US$6.4 billion of its own money to cover all losses. Teng said customer assets were safe and would not be used to cover the losses, and attributed Binance’s ability to absorb the losses to retained earnings and reinvestment into the business. He added that withdrawals from the exchange, which have been suspended pending a security overhaul, are expected to resume by Nov 1. In Singapore, the Binance.com trading platform operates outside the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s regulatory safeguards. MAS placed the platform on its Investor Alert List in September 2021, warning that it was not regulated or licensed to provide payment services here. It also ordered Binance to stop providing such services in Singapore and cease soliciting business from residents.

Crypto shaken after Binance hack; Wilmar discloses sales to firms in haze probe: Markets this week