Cybersecurity breaches remained a persistent thorn in the side of African companies in 2025, but the major highlights from the year weren’t the headline attacks. Institutions lost the luxury of keeping breaches quiet as cyberattacks became harder to hide.

Several African countries tightened the breach-reporting guidelines for operators. Chief among them is Algeria, which mandated a 5-day window for companies to report breaches or pay heavy fines. Kenya and South Africa also made significant strides in forcing organisations to treat breaches as public events rather than private IT problems. 

In Kenya, operators that discover a potential breach are now expected to alert data controllers within 48 hours, and controllers are pushed to file a preliminary report to the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (ODPC) within 72 hours—even if the full facts are not yet in. Late notifications must be justified, and new guidance from the regulator ties weak security and poor reporting directly to fines, sanctions, and even the risk of losing the right to process data. For Kenyan firms, that means the old instinct to “wait until we know more” now carries regulatory risk of its own.

South Africa also overhauled its breach‑reporting process. While the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) had long required organisations to notify both the regulator and affected people after a “security compromise,” in 2025, the Information Regulator tightened how that duty works in practice. In April, it mandated companies to log breaches through an online reporting portal using a form, forcing operators to spell out what happened, what data was involved, what they are doing to contain it, and what individuals should do to protect themselves.

According to South Africa’s Information Regulator, there were 2,374 reported breaches in the 2024/25 financial year, with 82% of them occurring after April 2025. The number pointed to an acceleration, but also hinted that disclosure was becoming unavoidable.

Elsewhere, Zambia chose to treat cybersecurity as a critical‑infrastructure issue rather than a back‑office concern. In April 2025, the country split its cyber law into two: a Cyber Security Act governing security service providers and critical information infrastructure, and a Cyber Crimes Act dealing with offences and penalties. Operators in sectors such as energy, banking and finance, health, transport, pensions and insurance, ICT, education, mining, and other designated public‑sector services can now be classified as controllers of “critical information” or “critical information infrastructure,” bringing them under a tighter supervisory net.

That designation comes with hard obligations: controllers must register with the new Zambia Cyber Security Agency, keep designated critical information hosted in Zambia unless expressly authorised to store it elsewhere, and promptly notify the agency of any perceived or actual cybersecurity incident affecting those systems or connected networks. They are also required to undergo annual audits, file cybersecurity situational-awareness reports, and participate in national cyber-exercises, with non-compliance punishable by fines of up to ZMW 1.2 million ($48,000) and, in serious cases, prison terms that can extend up to 10 years.

These regulatory shifts forced the disclosure of some of the most consequential breaches in 2025. At a new scale, they made visible how intrusions disrupt everyday customer services in very public ways.

Get The Best African Tech Newsletters In Your Inbox

Exposure as a strategy

If 2024 gave us the unfortunate breach at South Africa’s National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS), the biggest healthcare incident in 2025 was Kenya’s M-TIBA breach in October. Like a trophy showcase, hackers published the siphoned data on public Telegram channels, a pattern used to force organisations to comply with ransom demands. Organisations that hold sensitive customer data remained heavily targeted businesses in 2025.

Telecom firms, once assumed to be resilient by virtue of scale, became some of the most lucrative targets. Telecom Namibia, a state-owned provider, was quietly crippled by a ransomware attack in December 2024, with a public fallout that continued in January 2025. When the company refused to pay, attackers leaked sensitive billing data belonging to senior government officials in an attempt to force compliance.

On January 8, hackers hit mobile operator Cell C with a cybersecurity breach, with reports stating that perpetrators, RansomHouse, had “unlawfully disclosed the incident” and published stolen customer data on the dark web, exposing them to fraud and extortion.

In April, MTN Group disclosed a data breach affecting its South African subscribers. In Ghana, at least 5,700 MTN customers were directly affected in a breach reported on April 28. In South Africa, the breach escalated into a criminal investigation. The message to the industry was unmistakable: Telecoms had become identity vaults, and those vaults were being tested.

Hackers maintained their exhibitionist posture, and several other sensitive data organisations were hit. In January 2025, a cyberattack on the South African Weather Service (SAWS) knocked key systems offline, disrupting the delivery of aviation and marine forecasts and limiting access to critical weather information at home and across the region. In July, the municipal systems of Otjiwarongo, a quiet town in central Namibia, were knocked offline. Residents were blocked from accessing basic services as officials struggled to explain what had happened.

The year’s most consequential infrastructure breach involved South Africa’s Eskom, the state-owned power company, and it became a crowning moment of the exposure era—one that attached a clear financial cost to a cyber incident. 

In December 2024, the power utility detailed how its Online Vending System (OVS)—the platform used to generate prepaid electricity tokens—had been breached the previous year, after a forensic investigation linked large “non-technical” losses to fraud on the system.

The breach itself occurred in 2024, but only surfaced publicly in December, when Eskom acknowledged that criminals had exploited weaknesses in its vending platform to generate large volumes of fraudulent yet technically valid tokens. MyBroadBand, a local media publication, reported in November 2025 that Eskom employees, either acting as colluders or as orchestrators of the scheme, took advantage of the compromised system to create and sell fake power tokens, allegedly stealing between R657 million and R1.1 billion ($39.5 million–$66 million) from the company.

By September 2025, Eskom reported that fraud linked to the OVS breach had been reduced to “very low levels of activity.” The incident did something damaging: it made internal failure, financial loss, and delayed disclosure visible at once, underscoring how difficult it had become for institutions to keep breaches quiet.

Espionage?

State‑linked groups such as Salt Typhoon, associated with China, have targeted telecommunications providers—including at least one in South Africa, according to researchers at Recorded Future—seeking access not to cause disruption but to observe. Metadata, call records, network access—the architecture of daily life—proved more valuable than any single database.

These attacks rarely produced headlines. They did not need to. Their success lay in remaining largely invisible.

In South Africa, allegations surfaced in September that the State Security Agency (SSA) had been breached by a suspected Chinese-linked group known as RedNovember. Officials denied the intrusion, saying they investigated the claims and found no evidence of such a breach. Yet the matter remains a public spectacle on how espionage could be the objective for RedNovember, a group notorious for targeting high-profile governments and intergovernmental organisations (IGOs). RedNovember did not issue any statement on the alleged SSA breach.

At the same time, ransomware groups turned toward infrastructure: ports, utilities, logistics systems. In South Africa alone, ransomware- and cybercrime-related losses were estimated at $120 million annually. 

Elsewhere on the continent, Senegal’s tax authority was hit by ransomware that threatened to erase and leak sensitive fiscal records. On October 2, Senegal’s Directorate General of Taxes and Domains (DGID), a department of the Ministry of Economy, Finance, and Planning—responsible for tax and land policies and administration in the country—issued a statement denying the alleged attack, and framing it as a temporary technical glitch; with that move, the government opted for quiet containment and recovery. Yet the episode exposed the fragility of digital tax systems that underpin state revenue.

Similar pressures were visible across East Africa. Kenya’s national incident response team recorded over 842 million attempted cyber intrusions in Q3 2025, most targeting government login portals and internet service providers. In Ethiopia and several other countries in the region, repeated distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks aimed at telecom infrastructure remained a persistent thorn. These attacks were stress tests on states digitising faster than they could defend.

Get The Best African Tech Newsletters In Your Inbox

The new confidence trick

In 2025, people also stopped trusting voices.

AI-driven social engineering matured quickly. The fear of finance managers receiving calls that sounded exactly like their CEOs or video meetings featuring faces that blinked and nodded with unsettling accuracy increased. Traditional warning signs—bad grammar, strange domains—no longer apply.

West Africa’s long-running role as a hub for Business Email Compromise (BEC) hardened into something more industrial. Crime syndicates like Black Axe ran operations that were transnational, disciplined, and lucrative. Reports of digital sextortion—often involving AI-generated images used to blackmail victims—also surged.

Nigeria illustrated how cybercrime blended with insider abuse. At Access Bank, the country’s biggest bank by assets, investigators alleged that staff colluded to divert ₦826 million ($569,345) through a fake internal revenue account. It was not a breach in the conventional sense, but it underscored another reality of 2025: the most damaging compromises also came from willing, and even unwitting insiders.

Arrests, laws, and the theatre of response

There were moments of resolve. In a coordinated operation, INTERPOL arrested 1,209 cybercriminals across 18 African countries. Regulators also began flexing their muscles. The Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC), the country’s data privacy regulator, fined MultiChoice, the South African multinational media company, ₦766 million ($528,000) for failing to adequately protect consumer data. It signalled to African organisations that poor data stewardship would carry real financial consequences.

In North Africa, a wave of cyber incidents unfolded over several weeks in April. The sequence began when Moroccan-linked hackers allegedly compromised the X account of Algeria’s state news agency. TechCabal’s checks showed that the account was taken over in April and renamed to ‘Sahara Marocain,’ in what appeared to be a deliberate attempt to provoke.

On April 8, pro-Algerian group Jabaroot hit back. It reportedly hacked Morocco’s National Social Security Fund, directly framing it as retaliation. The disclosed breach exposed tens of thousands of files containing personal and financial information of nearly 2 million citizens. 

While officials disputed some of the leaked material, large portions of the data reportedly appeared on public Telegram channels. Soon after, the hacktivist group Jabaroot defaced Morocco’s Ministry of Labour website, citing retaliation for online attacks against Algerian media. The escalating tit-for-tat of digital reprisals underscored how cyber operations have become weapons of digital skirmishes, leaving civilians’ data as collateral damage.

Get The Best African Tech Newsletters In Your Inbox

What 2025 left behind

Between 2019 and 2025, Africa lost more than $3 billion to cybercrime, according to INTERPOL. The figure only captures money and not lost confidence following such attacks. The agency also noted that detection and response capabilities across the continent remain limited, lagging behind the pace and scale of emerging threats, and signalling an investment gap.

According to INTERPOL’s Africa Cyberthreat Assessment report, 90% of African businesses operate without adequate cybersecurity protocols in place. The same report notes that only 30% of African countries have an incident reporting system, underscoring persistent underreporting and structural gaps in how cyber incidents are captured.

Across much of Africa, cybersecurity spending has tended to cluster around basic perimeter tools and compliance-driven controls, while more advanced capabilities—continuous monitoring, threat hunting, assessments, testing, and controls—remain underdeveloped in many sectors outside large banks and telecom operators. 

A report by PwC, a global consulting firm, showed that only 28% of South African organisations are spending significantly more on proactive measures than reactive measures (such as incident response, fines, recovery). Globally, that figure is closer to 70%, yet most African organisations are not close to that mark.

Without stronger defences, the threats will spill over to 2026. Hackers are timing, striking when systems are already strained. Global blockchain startups are also discovering that smart contracts, accounting for $29 million in damages, fail just as human ones do. Information security analysts have become some of the most sought-after professionals on the continent.

As the year draws to a close, we learned that breaches are no longer the thing African institutions fear most. What they fear is being seen as unprepared, evasive, and ordinary in the face of a problem they once believed could be managed quietly.

SOURCE PAGE

At a time when everyday conversations about money are starting to feel heavier, rising prices, growing government debt, and questions about long-term stability, Bitcoin is again being pulled into the center of a much bigger debate. This time, the argument isn’t about replacing the U.S. dollar, but about whether Bitcoin can quietly make the system stronger. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong believes it can.

Speaking in December, Armstrong said Bitcoin acts as healthy competition for the U.S. dollar. Not as an enemy, and not as a substitute, but as an alternative that keeps policymakers on their toes. In his view, when people have a credible exit option, governments are forced to be more careful with how they manage money.

Armstrong explained that Bitcoin works more like a market signal than a political weapon. When inflation rises or government spending grows too fast, confidence in traditional money starts to weaken. People don’t wait for official reforms. They simply look for safer places to store value. Bitcoin, in that sense, reflects stress in the system rather than causing it.

He pointed out that moderate inflation can work if the economy grows at the same pace. The problem begins when inflation runs ahead of growth. Over time, that gap chips away at trust in the dollar, especially for global investors who rely on it as a store of value. Bitcoin’s existence, Armstrong argued, forces institutions like the Federal Reserve and lawmakers to think harder about the long-term impact of their decisions.

What $14B crypto forfeiture says about the U.S. bitcoin strategy

A massive Bitcoin seizure tied to a global scam could push America’s holdings past $36 billion and reveal how its approach to digital assets is changing.

Does Bitcoin actually weaken the U.S. dollar or hold it accountable?

This argument becomes more serious when viewed alongside America’s rising debt. The U.S. national debt has climbed to historic levels and continues to grow rapidly.

For Armstrong, Bitcoin introduces an unusual form of accountability. If confidence breaks down, people can move capital elsewhere. That possibility alone creates pressure. From this perspective, Bitcoin does not weaken the dollar. It quietly encourages better discipline to protect it.

Armstrong is not alone in framing Bitcoin this way. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has previously described Bitcoin as a hedge against currency debasement, particularly for countries that struggle with fiscal control. Hedge fund manager Paul Tudor Jones has compared Bitcoin to digital gold, saying it serves as protection in an era of aggressive money printing. Even Federal Reserve officials have acknowledged that crypto reflects public concerns about inflation and trust, even if they disagree on its role.

Across these views, the comparison is consistent. Bitcoin is not positioned as a new national currency, but as a parallel system that highlights weaknesses in existing ones.

How Stablecoins Are Becoming a Global Macroeconomic Force

As stablecoin use explodes past $9 trillion in annual transactions, the question becomes how long before they reshape global finance.

What role do stablecoins play in the future of the U.S. dollar?

While Bitcoin often grabs headlines, Armstrong and others have noted that dollar-backed stablecoins may be doing more to extend U.S. influence globally. Stablecoins allow people around the world to use digital dollars for everyday payments, savings, and transfers, often without touching the traditional banking system.

When the U.S. economy shows strength, confidence tends to flow back into dollar-based assets. In those moments, Bitcoin does not always rise. Stablecoins, however, gain traction by making the dollar easier to use across borders. Some industry leaders argue that this quietly reinforces dollar dominance in the digital economy.

Taken together, Bitcoin and stablecoins play very different roles. Bitcoin applies pressure by offering an alternative during times of instability. Stablecoins extend the reach of the dollar when confidence is high. Armstrong’s core argument is that this balance ultimately benefits the U.S., not by eliminating the dollar, but by forcing it to remain credible.

In that sense, Bitcoin’s most important impact may not be its price or volatility, but the uncomfortable questions it keeps raising. And for policymakers, those questions are becoming harder to ignore.

How the GENIUS Act Impacts Stablecoins and Crypto Adoption

With this implementation, stablecoins gain legal clarity, greater institutional trust, and a clear path toward real-world adoption at scale.

SOURCE PAGE

The Loch Ness Monster was ‘spotted’ five times in 2025, official records have revealed. 

The mythical creature has been a staple feature of Scottish folklore for centuries, but gained worldwide attention in 1933, when the first photo was snapped.

Since then, 1,165 sightings have been recorded by The Official Loch Ness Monster Sightings Register. 

The five sightings of the creature, nicknamed Nessie, took place across just an eight-month period. 

The first was on 22 March, when a couple visiting from London spotted a mysterious ‘hump’ in the water. 

Two months later, in May, a visitor reported a ‘long and thin’ creature in a boat’s wake. 

In August, a ‘long time local’ reported a sighting, before two visitors claimed to spot Nessie within weeks of each other in October. 

Here’s a closer look at the five sightings, and exactly what was seen. 

In May, a visitor viewing the loch from a high vantage point at around 15:40 spotted a small motor boat entering the bay

22 March 

At around 7pm on 22 March, a couple visiting from London heard a ‘quiet splash’ at Fort Augustus. 

‘We were right at the point where the River Taff connects to Loch Ness, on the north bank,’ one of them said. 

‘At first I noticed a very quiet splash sound as if something was cutting stealthily into the water and this drew my attention to the south side of the water. 

‘There I saw something moving through the water, between 130 and 160 feet away from us. 

‘It was paler than the jet-black water around it, but in the gloom it was impossible to determine a hue.’

The couple described the sighting as a ‘hump’, adding that it was ‘large and alive’.  

‘Kind of like if a large seal or walrus was swimming in the water but for some reason it’s head was hidden, like just it’s back was exposed,’ they explained. 

The mythical creature has been a staple feature of Scottish folklore for centuries, but gained worldwide attention in 1933, when the first photo was snapped

In late August, a long time local resident shot a two-minute video of something under the water near Lochend

While it was too dark to pick up on details like texture, the couple soon realised that there was a second mass in its wake.

‘It was roughly the same size and shape as the leading mass but perhaps lower in the water,’ they added. 

‘There was maybe 1.5 to 2 meters gap between the humps from my line of sight. I think until I saw the second hump I was thinking it was a seal that was behaving strangely.’

The creature soon left the area, moving towards the deeper part of the loch, before disappearing.  

‘Later when we talked about it, my partner told me that from her vantage point it was clear that the two humps were on one creature, that it was one long creature,’ the viewer added. 

23 May

In May, a visitor viewing the loch from a high vantage point at around 15:40 spotted a small motor boat entering the bay. 

Using binoculars, he peered at the boat’s wake, and spotted something ‘long and thin’ pop up.

On 15 October, Peter Hoyle was visiting the Loch from Moray, when he spotted a dark shape sticking out of the water

While the object vanished a few times, he managed to catch it on film, with the entire sighting lasting just five minutes.   

29 August

In late August, a long time local resident shot a two-minute video of something under the water near Lochend. 

Filmed at 09:15 during ‘calm clear conditions’, the footage shows an unusual disturbance pattern on the surface of the water. 

Despite living in the area for 30 years, the resident said they had ‘never seen anything like this before.’  

15 October 

On 15 October, Peter Hoyle was visiting the Loch from Moray, when he spotted a dark shape sticking out of the water. 

The shape was moving from the right side of the loch to the left, travelling ‘fairly quickly, but not boat speed’. 

Finally, Mishawn Mielke, a tourist from Texas, was visiting Urquhart Castle when she reported seeing a black head in the water at 14.45

Within 30 seconds, the shape had disappeared into the depths of the water – although Mr Hoyle did manage to capture footage of the short sighting. 

28 October 2025

Finally, Mishawn Mielke, a tourist from Texas, was visiting Urquhart Castle when she reported seeing a black head in the water at 14.45. 

‘I first saw it and was like wow, that looks just like images I saw from the sightings website,’ she said.

‘It didn’t look like a wave, it actually looked like the head of something popping up. it made a distinct pattern in the water I couldn’t see anywhere else, kind of like its own wake. And than it was gone. 

‘From that distance I’d say the water pattern was at least 3m long.’

Webcam images

Four sightings were also reported via webcam images in 2025, although these are listed separately.

‘Over the past few years, and especially during the Covid crisis, many images that we receive come from the Loch Ness Webcam,’ The Official Loch Ness Monster Sightings Register explains on its website.

‘For reasons outwith the control of the camera operators, the resolution of some of the images from the camera has at times been less than ideal. 

‘As such, it has been more difficult to identify what some images submitted. 

‘Given they are still “unexplained” though, we decided that from 2021 onwards, such images would be listed separately from those that are reported by people who saw something while physically at the loch.’

What IS the Loch Ness Monster?

Rumours of a strange creature living in the waters of Loch Ness have abounded over the decades, yet scant evidence has been found to back up these claims.

One of the first sightings, believed to have fuelled modern Nessie fever, came in May 2, 1933.  

On this date the Inverness Courier carried a story about a local couple who claim to have seen ‘an enormous animal rolling and plunging on the surface’.

Another famous claimed sighting is a photograph taken in 1934 by Colonel Robert Kenneth Wilson.

It was later exposed as a hoax by one of the participants, Chris Spurling, who, on his deathbed, revealed that the pictures were staged.

Other sightings James Gray’s picture from 2001 when he and friend Peter Levings were out fishing on the Loch, while namesake Hugh Gray’s blurred photo of what appears to be a large sea creature was published in the Daily Express in 1933.

Robert Kenneth Wilson, a London physician, captured arguably the most famous image of the Loch Ness Monster. The surgeon’s photograph was published in the Daily Mail on April 21, 1934 – however it was later proven to be a fake 

The first reported sighting of the monster is said to have been made in AD565 by the Irish missionary St Columba when he came across a giant beast in the River Ness.

But no one has ever come up with a satisfactory explanation for the sightings – although in 2019, ‘Nessie expert’ Steve Feltham, who has spent 24 years watching the Loch, said he thought it was actually a giant Wels Catfish, native to waters near the Baltic and Caspian seas in Europe.

An online register lists more than 1,000 total Nessie sightings, created by Mr Campbell, the man behind the Official Loch Ness Monster Fan Club and is available at www.lochnesssightings.com. 

So what could explain these mysterious sightings? 

Many Nessie witnesses have mentioned large, crocodile-like scutes sitting atop the spine of the creature, leading some to believe an escaped amphibian may be to blame.

Native fish sturgeons can also weigh several hundred pounds and have ridged backs, which make them look almost reptilian.

Some believe Nessie is a long-necked plesiosaur – like an elasmosaur – that survived somehow when all the other dinosaurs were wiped out.

Others say the sightings are down to Scottish pines dying and flopping into the loch, before quickly becoming water-logged and sinking.

While submerged, botanical chemicals start trapping tiny bubbles of air.

Eventually, enough of these are gathered to propel the log upward as deep pressures begin altering its shape, giving the appearance of an animal coming up for air.

SOURCE PAGE

Meta has acquired Singapore-based AI startup Manus for billions of dollars, closing the deal in just over ten days—a speed that shocked even the startup’s own investors.

“At first, we almost doubted whether this was a fake offer,” said Liu Yuan, partner at ZhenFund and an early investor in Manus, describing the extremely short negotiation timeline. The deal marks Meta’s third-largest acquisition ever, behind only WhatsApp and Scale AI.

But here’s what makes this urgent: Manus launched only in March 2025. Eight months later, Meta paid billions to own it. That timeline tells you everything about how fast the AI landscape is moving and how seriously tech giants now view the gap between talking and doing.

Meta Spent Billions on AI. Its Next Big Models Still Aren’t Ready

The Chief AI Officer told employees that its two most important AI models won’t ship until next year.

The Shift From Chatbots to Workers

The difference between current AI tools and what Manus built comes down to execution. Most AI—ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini—can answer questions, write text, and suggest next steps. Manus goes further: it completes entire workflows autonomously without constant supervision.

Want a 40-page market research report? Manus researches, analyses, structures, and delivers it while you’re in another meeting. Need to screen hundreds of job applications? It reads them, scores candidates, and presents recommendations. Looking for a two-bedroom apartment in a specific neighbourhood? It searches listings, compares options, and builds a shortlist with pricing breakdowns.

This isn’t about generating better responses. It’s about AI that finishes tasks from start to end, the way you’d hand work to a colleague and expect them to handle it completely.

Manus achieved $100 million in annual recurring revenue just eight months after launch, reportedly the fastest any startup globally has hit that milestone. The company processed more than 147 trillion tokens this year and created over 80 million virtual computers while serving millions of users worldwide.

Those metrics explain why Meta moved so quickly.

Behind the acquisition is a recognition that Meta has fallen behind in a critical area. While the company has invested heavily in AI infrastructure and model development, it struggled to translate that into consumer products that feel genuinely transformative.

Apple has reportedly explored acquiring Perplexity AI. Microsoft continues deepening its OpenAI partnership. Google is pushing agents across its product suite. The window for acquiring proven autonomous agent technology is closing fast as the best companies either get bought or become prohibitively expensive.

Manus was in the middle of raising a new funding round at a $2 billion valuation when Meta approached. Instead of letting competitors make offers or waiting for the price to climb higher, Meta closed the deal in days. Mark Zuckerberg and several Meta executives were already using Manus themselves, which likely accelerated the decision.

“Joining Meta allows us to build on a stronger, more sustainable foundation without changing how Manus works or how decisions are made,” said Xiao Hong, Manus CEO, who will now serve as Vice President at Meta while continuing to run the company from Singapore.

Meta plans to keep operating Manus as a standalone service while integrating its technology into Meta AI, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and its AI-powered glasses. That means autonomous agent capabilities could soon reach billions of users across Meta’s platforms.

What This Means for Users

The acquisition signals a fundamental shift in how AI will work in everyday apps. Instead of typing prompts into a chatbot and reviewing its suggestions, you’ll be able to assign complete tasks and walk away.

Book a vacation itinerary? The AI researches flights, hotels, activities, and presents a complete plan. Analyse your investment portfolio? It pulls data, identifies trends, flags risks, and creates a summary report. Draft a presentation deck? It builds slides, adds relevant data visualizations, and structures the narrative.

The integration timeline isn’t clear yet, but Meta’s urgency suggests the company wants these capabilities live quickly. The competitive pressure from Apple, Google, and Microsoft is intensifying, and autonomous agents represent the next major platform shift—similar to how mobile apps transformed what phones could do a decade ago.

Manus currently operates on a subscription model: a free tier with one daily task, a $39/month Starter plan, and a $199/month Pro plan. How Meta adapts that pricing when integrating Manus into its free platforms remains to be seen, but the company has historically preferred advertising-supported models over direct subscriptions.

Image Credit: Manus

The China Factor and Strategic Independence

There’s another layer here. Manus was created by Butterfly Effect, a Chinese company that recently relocated its headquarters to Singapore. The startup raised $75 million from U.S. venture firm Benchmark in April, which drew scrutiny from lawmakers concerned about backing an AI company with Chinese origins.

Meta says Manus will sever all ties to Chinese investors and will not operate in China following the acquisition. That’s a significant condition, especially as U.S.-China tech tensions continue shaping corporate strategy in AI development.

The company will continue operating independently from Singapore, maintaining its existing team and decision-making structure. That autonomy matters—Manus built its technology by aggressively combining and optimizing existing AI models from Anthropic and Alibaba rather than developing everything from scratch. Keeping that team intact and independent preserves the execution speed that made them valuable in the first place.

The Bigger Picture

Meta’s acquisition reveals how the AI industry is entering a new phase. The era of impressing people with clever text generation is over. The fight now centres on which companies can deliver AI that executes real work reliably and repeatedly.

Manus achieved something most startups don’t: product-market fit at scale in record time. The company’s rapid revenue growth and global user adoption proved that people will pay for AI that actually completes tasks, not just assists with them.

Whether Meta can maintain that momentum while integrating Manus into its vastly larger ecosystem is the open question. The company has a mixed record on acquisitions—Instagram and WhatsApp thrived, while others faded. But the speed of this deal and Zuckerberg’s personal involvement suggest Meta understands the stakes.

For now, the message is clear: autonomous agents that execute tasks from start to finish are the next battleground in AI. And Meta just paid billions rather than risk building too slowly on its own.

IBM Acquires Confluent for $11 Billion to Power Real-Time AI Data

The deal highlights a growing trend of tech giants investing heavily in data infrastructure to ensure AI systems can make decisions instantly.

SOURCE PAGE

Nigeria’s National Assembly has initiated an institutional review of the legislative handling of Nigeria’s controversial tax reform laws, following discrepancies between versions passed by lawmakers and those published in the Official Gazette.

A seven-member ad hoc committee has been constituted to establish what went wrong in the passage of four critical tax bills that have generated significant public attention.

According to a press statement from the House spokesman, Rep. Akin Rotimi, the committee will examine the sequence of events surrounding the Nigeria Tax Act 2025, the Nigeria Tax Administration Act 2025, the Joint Revenue Board of Nigeria (Establishment) Act 2025, and the Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act 2025.

The review will focus on identifying lapses, irregularities, or external interferences that may have contributed to the confusion between the harmonised bills passed by both chambers and the versions subsequently gazetted.

The House raised the matter under a Point of Order on Privileges, suggesting possible concerns about the integrity of the legislative process.

Similar: How the new tax law will affect POS agents

Tax committee tasked with examining discrepancies

The ad hoc committee, working alongside other relevant National Assembly committees and management, has been tasked with conducting a comprehensive examination of how documents were transmitted for presidential assent and why discrepancies emerged in the final gazetted versions.

Leadership under Senate President Godswill Obot Akpabio and House Speaker Abbas Tajudeen has directed the Clerk to the National Assembly to regazette the Acts and issue Certified True Copies reflecting the actual legislative decisions made by both chambers.

This administrative correction is meant to authenticate what lawmakers genuinely passed, addressing concerns that the published versions may not accurately represent the National Assembly’s intentions.

The press release emphasises that the review will be conducted within constitutional boundaries, examining compliance with the Acts Authentication Act, Standing Orders of both chambers, and established parliamentary practice.

However, the statement carefully notes that this does not constitute an admission of any defect in legislative authority, maintaining that the exercise is strictly procedural.

Taiwo Oyedele, chairman of the presidential committee on fiscal policy and tax reforms

What remains unclear is how long Nigerians must wait for both processes to conclude. The regazetting appears to be an administrative function that could be executed relatively quickly once discrepancies are identified and corrected.

Yet, the committee’s investigative work presents a different timeline challenge. Institutional reviews of this nature typically require thorough documentation review, witness interviews, and examination of administrative procedures at multiple levels of the legislative bureaucracy.

Read also: Banks, fintechs mandated to generate Tax IDs for account holders from January

The silence surrounding the committee’s progress suggests work may only be beginning – or not.

Parliamentary investigations often take weeks or months, particularly when examining complex legislative processes involving multiple stakeholders. The committee must trace the bills’ journey from harmonisation through authentication, presidential assent, and final gazette publication to identify where things went wrong.

Beyond procedural corrections, the review must determine whether irregularities resulted from administrative error, systemic failures, or deliberate interference.

The reference to examining “external interferences” in the press statement raises questions about whether forces outside the National Assembly may have influenced the final gazetted versions.

Establishing culpability for any breach of legislative procedure or authentication laws will require careful investigation and could have significant consequences for individuals or institutions found responsible.

It bears noting that the France-FIRS partnership arrangement continues to generate questions, and the public has yet to see the Memorandum of Understanding governing this relationship. This lack of transparency compounds existing concerns about the tax reform process.

The National Assembly urges Nigerians to avoid speculation while institutional processes unfold, but the extended silence and unclear timelines inevitably fuel public anxiety.

SOURCE PAGE

Mark Zuckerberg has struck again.

Meta Platforms is acquiring Manus, a Singapore-based AI startup that’s become the talk of Silicon Valley since it materialized this spring with a demo video so slick it went instantly viral. The clip showed an AI agent that could do things like screen job candidates, plan vacations, and analyze stock portfolios. Manus claimed at the time that it outperformed OpenAI’s Deep Research.

By April, just weeks after launch, the early-stage firm Benchmark led a $75 million funding round that assigned Manus a post-money valuation of $500 million. General partner Chetan Puttagunta joined the board. Per Chinese media outlets, some other big-name backers had already invested in Manus at that point, including Tencent, ZhenFund, and HSG (formerly known as Sequoia China) via an earlier $10 million round.

Though Bloomberg raised questions when Manus started charging $39 or $199 a month for access to its AI models (the outlet noted the pricing seemed “somewhat aggressive . . . for a membership service still in a testing phase,”) the company recently announced it had since signed up millions of users and crossed $100 million in annual recurring revenue.

That’s when Meta started negotiating with Manus, according to the WSJ, which says Meta is paying $2 billion — the same valuation Manus was seeking for its next funding round.

For Zuckerberg, who has staked Meta’s future on AI, Manus represents something new: an AI product that’s actually making money (investors have grown increasingly twitchy about Meta’s $60 billion infrastructure spending spree).

Meta says it’ll keep Manus running independently while weaving its agents into Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, where Meta’s own chatbot, Meta AI, is already available to users.

Techcrunch event

San Francisco
|
October 13-15, 2026

There is one wrinkle, however, which is that Manus, which launched eight months ago, has Chinese founders who founded parent company Butterfly Effect in Beijing in 2022 before decamping to Singapore in the middle of this year. Whether that raises flags in Washington remains to be seen, but Senator John Cornyn already dragged Benchmark for its investment in the company, asking back in May on X who thought it was “a good idea for American investors to subsidize our biggest adversary in AI, only to have the CCP use that technology to challenge us economically and militarily? Not me.”

Cornyn, a Texas Republican and senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has long been one of Congress’s most vocal hawks on China and technology competition, but he’s hardly alone. Being tough on China has become one of the genuinely bipartisan issues in Congress.

Unsurprisingly, Meta has already told Nikkei Asia that after the acquisition, Manus won’t have any ties to Chinese investors and will no longer operate in China. “There will be no continuing Chinese ownership interests in Manus AI following the transaction, and Manus AI will discontinue its services and operations in China,” a Meta spokesperson told the outlet.

SOURCE PAGE

Osmond ChiaBusiness reporter

Getty Images

China has proposed strict new rules for artificial intelligence (AI) to provide safeguards for children and prevent chatbots from offering advice that could lead to self-harm or violence.

Under the planned regulations, developers will also need to ensure their AI models do not generate content that promotes gambling.

The announcement comes after a surge in the number of chatbots being launched in China and around the world.

Once finalised, the rules will apply to AI products and services in China, marking a major move to regulate the fast-growing technology, which has come under intense scrutiny over safety concerns this year.

The draft rules, which were published at the weekend by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), include measures to protect children. They include requiring AI firms to offer personalised settings, have time limits on usage and getting consent from guardians before providing emotional companionship services.

Chatbot operators must have a human take over any conversation related to suicide or self-harm and immediately notify the user’s guardian or an emergency contact, the administration said.

AI providers must ensure that their services do not generate or share “content that endangers national security, damages national honour and interests [or] undermines national unity”, the statement said.

The CAC said it encourages the adoption of AI, such as to promote local culture and create tools for companionship for the elderly, provided that the technology is safe and reliable. It also called for feedback from the public.

Chinese AI firm DeepSeek made headlines worldwide this year after it topped app download charts.

This month, two Chinese startups Z.ai and Minimax, which together have tens of millions of users, announced plans to list on the stock market.

The technology has quickly gained huge numbers of subscribers with some using it for companionship or therapy.

The impact of AI on human behaviour has come under increased scrutiny in recent months.

Sam Altman, the head of ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, said this year that the way chatbots respond to conversations related to self-harm is among the company’s most difficult problems.

In August, a family in California sued OpenAI over the death of their 16-year-old son, alleging that ChatGPT encouraged him to take his own life. The lawsuit marked the first legal action accusing OpenAI of wrongful death.

This month, the company advertised for a “head of preparedness” who will be responsible for defending against risks from AI models to human mental health and cybersecurity.

The successful candidate will be responsible for tracking AI risks that could pose a harm to people. Mr Altman said: “This will be a stressful job, and you’ll jump into the deep end pretty much immediately.”

If you are suffering distress or despair and need support, you could speak to a health professional, or an organisation that offers support. Details of help available in many countries can be found at Befrienders Worldwide: www.befrienders.org.

In the UK, a list of organisations that can help is available at bbc.co.uk/actionline. Readers in the US and Canada can call the 988 suicide helpline or visit its website.

SOURCE PAGE

By JAKE HOLDEN, UK NEWS REPORTER

Published: 01:13 GMT, 30 December 2025 | Updated: 01:13 GMT, 30 December 2025

A new picture from NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope has revealed a beautiful ‘star making factory’ deep in the universe this week.

This picture focuses in on a piece of space 160,000 light years from Earth in the Large Magellanic Cloud.

That means it takes light 160,000 years to travel the distance to this ‘star factor’, so this is actually what it looked like 160,000 years ago.

Here on Earth, Neanderthals were extinct only 40,000 years ago, so would still be roaming our planet for another 120,000 years after this light was emitted from the factory.

This is an unfathomably gigantic scale the telescope has revealed, with the full width of this factory being 150 light years across too.

Thick clouds of cold hydrogen – star fuel – twist over the giant area, glowing deep red where baby stars are forming, burning.

Some erratic stars have blasted their surroundings with powerful stellar winds which carve out giant bubbles in the gas.

The Large Magellanic Cloud is a nearby dwarf irregular galaxy which is a satellite of our Milky Way, slowly orbiting our galaxy. The Milky Way itself is 100,000 light years across.

It is visible in the southern hemisphere of Earth in the constellations of Dorado and Mensa, showing as a large misty cloud, easily seen by the naked eye in dark skies.

The Hubble Space Telescope has been in a low Earth orbit for the past three decades and has been revealing far away pieces of space for all that time. It is a joint project between NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA).

This new picture from the Hubble Space Telescope shows a ‘star factory’ at work in the Large Magellanic Cloud

Share or comment on this article:
A snapshot of the universe at work: Incredible image shows ‘star-making factory’ inside a Large Magellanic Cloud

SOURCE PAGE

At TechCrunch Disrupt, three investors took the stage to dissect what makes — and breaks — a pitch deck. Jyoti Bansal, a founder-turned-investor; Medha Agarwal of Defy; and Jennifer Neundorfer of January Ventures shared with the crowd their candid views on what works in a pitch deck — and what doesn’t.

Their biggest pet peeve? Buzzword overload.

The more a founder says AI in the pitch, Agarwal said, the less AI the company likely uses. “The people who are doing things that are really innovative, they’ll talk about it, and it’s built in, but it’s not the core of their pitch,” she told the audience.  

Bansal, who built and sold multiple companies before becoming an investor, distilled investor expectations into three core questions. First, he asks whether there is a large enough market to tackle. Does the founder’s idea have the potential to become a huge company? And is the problem he or she is solving actually worth solving?

The second thing investors want to know is why this founder is the one who should be building the company. “There has to be something unique about you,” Bansal told the crowd, adding that this included having special members on the founding team or having special skills. “Why would you win? If the problem is interesting, there will be 20 other companies trying to solve it, so why would you win and what’s your opportunity?”  

The third thing investors want to see, Bansal said, is some validation. “Traction with customers,” he said. “Validation could be initial customer feedback, revenue, something, but some kind of validation.”  

These three questions, Bansal noted, all lead to the ultimate litmus test: Could this become a billion-dollar company?

Techcrunch event

San Francisco
|
October 13-15, 2026

The panel also addressed how AI startups can differentiate themselves as the space becomes saturated. Bansal emphasized the importance of domain expertise and a clear competitive strategy. Neundorfer said the companies that catch her attention are those enabling new behaviors rather than simply improving an existing process incrementally.  

Agarwal offered more tactical advice to founders, saying they should explain how AI technology enables their product; articulate clear go-to-market strategies; and demonstrate how their business will be more efficient than incumbents.

It’s also very important to be honest about what competitors are out there, she added. Some of you have “lost some credibility with me because you didn’t have it on your slide,” she told the founders in the audience. 

Finally, the investors shared advice for navigating the rapidly evolving landscape. Agarwal urged founders to stay on top of industry developments. Neundorfer recommended staying connected to founder networks to share tools and insights.

Bansal’s advice was simpler: “Focus on building your product.”

SOURCE PAGE

By STACY LIBERATORE, US SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY EDITOR

Published: 21:05 GMT, 29 December 2025 | Updated: 21:21 GMT, 29 December 2025

The US Marine Corps has tested a groundbreaking long-range strike system for its attack helicopters just days after President Donald Trump issued a WWIII warning.

Over the Atlantic Test Range, the Marines launched the cutting-edge Red Wolf weapon from an AH-1Z Viper helicopter, striking a sea-based target with pinpoint precision.

Developed by L3Harris, Red Wolf is a modular, high-subsonic missile that can relay targeting data and engage distant targets, giving helicopters capabilities once reserved for much larger platforms.

Current helicopter-fired weapons, like the AGM-114 Hellfire and the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile–Medium Range, are limited to roughly 21 miles and 10 miles, respectively, while Red Wolf can reach approximately 230 miles at low altitudes.

The successful test marks a major leap forward in the Marine Corps’ Long Range Attack Missile (LRAM) program, demonstrating a next-generation system that dramatically extends helicopter strike range.

In a potential Pacific conflict, the system could temporarily disrupt a warship’s sensors, opening a window for follow-on strikes by larger weapons such as the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile or the Joint Strike Missile.

Earlier this month, Trump warned that the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war could spiral into a world war. 

‘Things like this end up in a third world war,’ he told reporters on December 11. ‘Everybody keeps playing games like this, you’ll end up in a third world war, and we don’t want to see that happen.’

This is a developing story… More updates to come.

Over the Atlantic Test Range, the Marines launched the cutting-edge Red Wolf weapon from an AH-1Z Viper helicopter, striking a sea-based target with pinpoint precision

Trump’s warning casts a spotlight on the precarious state of negotiations in the ongoing war in Ukraine, which erupted when Russia launched a full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022. 

Efforts to reach a peace settlement have been stalled by sharply divergent goals on both sides.

The president’s caution about a potential worldwide escalation highlights the conflict’s far-reaching implications, involving NATO, European allies, and other global powers as tensions enter another year.

While the Marines’ test of the new weapon was not in response to Trump’s warning, it does mark a breakthrough for the US military.

President at L3Harris’ Space and Airborne Systems Ed Zoiss said: ‘This test validated Red Wolf’s advanced tracking and targeting capabilities, further demonstrating its ease of use and integration across platforms.

‘We’ve now proven our launched effects vehicles will help provide our warfighters the asymmetrical advantage they need to handle increasingly sophisticated threats without the need to enter into adversary weapon engagement zones.’ 

The turbojet-powered vehicle measures around six feet in length and features fold-out fins for stability and control. 

It can also carry payloads weighing up to 25 pounds, according to The Defense Post.

Over the Atlantic Test Range, the Marines launched the cutting-edge Red Wolf weapon from an AH-1Z Viper helicopter, striking a sea-based target with pinpoint precision

Share or comment on this article:
US military tests revolutionary long-range strike system from attack helicopters as WW3 fears mount

SOURCE PAGE

As social media becomes increasingly reliant on algorithmic feeds, creators are navigating a new normal: Just because you post something doesn’t mean your followers will see it.

“I think that 2025 was the year where the algorithm completely took over, so followings stopped mattering entirely,” LTK CEO Amber Venz Box told TechCrunch.

This isn’t news to creators – Patreon CEO Jack Conte has ardently banged this drum for years – but throughout the year, the industry at large has reacted to this phenomenon in different ways, from the influencers to the streamers.

According to the executives that TechCrunch spoke to about the near future of the creator economy, creators are finding new ways to harness and cultivate their relationships with their followers – some acting as a salve to AI slop, while others are flooding the zone with a new form of slop themselves.

Box’s company, LTK, connects creators with brands through affiliate marketing, where creators earn commissions on products they recommend. Since this business model is centered around affiliate marketing, it only works if people retain trust in individual creators. It could be an existential threat if the relationship between creators and their audiences continues to fragment.

But through a study commissioned from Northwestern University, LTK found that trust in creators increased 21% year-over-year, which was a pleasant surprise to Box.

“If you asked me at the beginning of 2025, ‘Hey, is trust in creators going to go up or down?’ I would have probably said down, because people understand it’s an industry – they understand how it’s working,” she said. “But actually, AI pushed people to kind of rotate trust to real humans that they know have real life experiences.”

Techcrunch event

San Francisco
|
October 13-15, 2026

By that, Box means that consumers are more likely to go out of their way to see content from the creators they know and trust. According to the study, 97% of chief marketing officers intend to grow influencer marketing budgets in the new year.

That doesn’t mean that owning these relationships is straightforward. LTK creators, who rely on affiliate income, are betting this AI-induced skepticism will drive people toward more direct relationships through paid fan communities or less algorithmic platforms like LTK itself. For other kinds of creators, such as streamers, video podcasters, and short filmmakers, the strategy for owning their audience can more closely resemble growth hacking.

Teenage clipping armies

As Sean Atkins, CEO of short-form video production company Dhar Mann Studios, put it, “In a world that’s driven by AI and algorithms, where people trust another human being more in this micro atomization of attention, how do you market when you sort of can’t control that?”

According to Eric Wei, cofounder of Karat Financial, a financial services company for creators, creators have a new secret weapon: armies of teenagers on Discord who creators pay to make clips of their content, which those same teenagers post en masse on algorithmic platforms.

“That’s been going on for a bit,” Wei explained. “Drake does it. A lot of the biggest creators and streamers in the world have been doing it – Kai Cenat [a top Twitch streamer] has done it – hitting millions of impressions… If it’s algorithmically determined, clipping suddenly makes sense, because it can come from any random account that just has really good clips.”

Wei thinks that clipping is going to become even more popular this year, since it’s a reaction to this fragmentation in social media relationships. Even the biggest creators are finding it hard to reach their fans directly, which is why they turn to clipping. While going viral on these algorithmic feeds is certainly easier if you have a ton of followers, you don’t need any track-record on a platform for it to decide that your video should be distributed more broadly. So, if these “clippers” post a short highlight from certain creators’ streams, they can earn money based on how many views the video gets. 

“Clipping feels like an evolution of meme accounts,” Glenn Ginsburg, president of QYOU Media, which produces content for young audiences, told TechCrunch. “It’s become a race among many creators to try and take this content and push it out far and wide, almost competing to see who can get the most views on the same IP.”

Reed Duchscher – founding CEO of Night, the talent management company that represents Kai Cenat and other top creators – masterfully coaches creators through maximizing their virality. As MrBeast’s former manager, Duchscher helped cultivate the fast-paced, attention-grabbing style that transformed MrBeast from a YouTuber to an empire. He’s also behind Kai Cenat’s clipping strategy, though Duchscher isn’t quite as enthusiastic about its broader potential as Wei.

“Clipping is important if you’re a creator, because you do need to flood the zone with content, and it’s a good way to get your face out there,” Duchscher told TechCrunch. “It’s also very hard to get to scale, because there’s only so many clippers on the internet, so to spend large media budgets… there’s just a lot of complications.”

Perhaps clipping only works now because the technique has not yet become so prevalent that it’s seen as spam.

“The creator wins because they get more of their content out,” Wei said. “The clippers win because now this army of teenagers are getting paid. Everybody wins, except that if you take this to its logical conclusion, we just get lots and lots of slop.”

The more niche, the better

The prevalence of slop on social media has become enough of a threat that Merriam-Webster called slop its word of the year.

“Over 94% of people are saying that social media is no longer social, and over half of them are rotating time elsewhere into smaller niche communities that they know are real and that they can talk to and interact with,” Box said, pointing to platforms like Strava, LinkedIn, and Substack. 

As the relationship between a creator and their audience becomes more difficult to maintain, Duchscher predicts that creators with more specific niches will succeed – he thinks that “macro creators” like MrBeast, PewDiePie, or Charli D’Amelio, who amass hundreds of millions of followers, will become even harder to emulate.

Pointing to success stories like like Alix Earle or Outdoor Boys, who have millions of followers but not necessarily mass appeal, Duchscher adds, “Algorithms have gotten so good at giving us exactly the content we want. It’s much harder for a creator to break out into every niche algorithm.” 

Atkins agrees, arguing that the creator economy extends far beyond entertainment. “The creator economy generally is viewed through this lens of entertainment. I think that’s a mistake, because thinking about the creator economy is a little bit like thinking about the internet or AI – it’s going to affect everything.”

Atkins mentions the gardening creator brand Epic Gardening as an example. What started as a YouTube channel has created a real, tangible presence in the world of gardening.

“Epic Gardening bought the third largest seed company in the United States, so now he’s the third largest seed company [owner], as a content creator,” he said.

Though the creator economy is in flux, it’s a resilient industry – one that’s accustomed to navigating the whims of the algorithm, persisting onward for decades, even if the uninitiated may see it as a brand new realm.

Creators are “literally impacting everything,” Atkins said. “I bet you there’s a creator who’s an expert at cement mixing for skyscrapers.”

SOURCE PAGE

Automated trading is possible in any market, including Forex, crypto, stocks, options, futures, and more. However, given Forex’s appeal to a wide range of traders, automated trading is in the most significant demand here. The best expert advisors for Forex have proven their effectiveness, which is why their use has grown significantly in recent years. Still, the young yet rapidly developing crypto market has also quickly integrated automated trading.

If you’re unsure which market is best suited for trading bots, study their key features. This will help you choose the option that requires less involvement and offers the highest returns from automated trading.

What is a Forex Robot (Expert Advisor) 

Forex robots are customizable software for automated trading of fiat currency pairs on the Forex market, primarily through MT4 and MT5. Forex robots or Expert Advisors (EAs) have basic settings that determine their algorithm. However, traders can easily customize them to suit their trading strategies, even without programming knowledge. 

Moreover, if you’re well-versed in IT, you can even create your own trading robot. MT4 and MT5 trading platforms have a built-in programming language (MQL4 and MQL5, respectively), which allows you to develop and test your own trading bots. 

However, traders most often prefer to use proven Forex robots with basic and advanced settings, such as: 

• Indicators, such as Moving Averages, Oscillators, etc.; 
• Order management;
• Trade entry/exit conditions;
• Risk management (Stop Loss and Take Profit functions);
• Spread control; 
• Signal filtering, etc.

What is a Cryptocurrency Trading Bot? 

A cryptocurrency trading bot is specialized software for automated trading, but for a different asset class. It is only suitable for trading cryptocurrencies, which exist in the digital realm free from strict regulation by national governments or banking systems. 

Unlike Forex robots, their customization is not as easy and, therefore, requires specialized knowledge. Their functionality is more complex, so if you want more room for experimentation with a trading bot, you should start with Forex robots. But if trading crypto is your primary focus, you will be more dependent on automated software developers.

Core Differences: Market, Technology, and Risk

While Forex EAs and crypto trading bots have many similarities, trading with each will offer a completely different experience. This is due to the fundamental differences between fiat and cryptocurrencies, regulatory certainty/uncertainty, and the technologies that support their circulation.

Market

Cryptocurrency prices fluctuate much more than those of fiat currencies. Normal daily price movements for cryptocurrencies are around 20%, and during periods of turbulence, they can reach as high as 80%. Meanwhile, the typical daily fluctuations of popular currencies such as the USD or EUR are only 1-2%, and during significant crises, they can reach 4-7%.

This difference in volatility makes trading in the crypto market more risky and unpredictable. Therefore, completely refusing to monitor the performance of crypto trading bots can lead to significant losses. At the same time, the comparative stability of the fiat currency market allows traders to devote less attention to monitoring the performance of Forex bots.

Technology

Forex trading is more centralized because it relies on traditional banking infrastructure and its familiar operating rhythms. Meanwhile, the crypto market is accessible 24/7 since it uses decentralized blockchain technology. Trading in this market bypasses banks and brokers, which play a crucial role in the Forex financial infrastructure. At the same time, when trading in the crypto market, you will need centralized or decentralized exchanges (CEX/DEX), crypto wallets, P2P platforms, and other elements of the digital currency ecosystem.

Risks 

In addition to the high volatility of cryptocurrencies, trading in the crypto market carries other significant risks. Forex trading, for example, is much safer in comparison with cryptocurrency trading because of regulatory protection. Traders on Forex can rely on dispute resolution mechanisms, legal requirements for brokers, account insurance schemes, and other mechanisms to mitigate trading risks. In contrast, the crypto market’s regulatory uncertainty makes this asset riskier for investors. 

Furthermore, the potential high profitability of cryptocurrencies and high returns from speculation make this market attractive to scammers. Even experienced investors can make mistakes and invest their money in scammy crypto projects.

Conclusion 

The choice between a Forex robot and a crypto trading bot depends on many factors: risk tolerance, the time you’re willing to devote to trading, your interest in new technologies, etc. Thus, if you want to profit from significant price fluctuations, automated crypto trading is a better choice. However, it will require substantial involvement on your part, even when using crypto trading bots. 

If you prefer long-term trading strategies, Forex robots are a better choice. They can deliver excellent results even with minimal involvement. However, the profits won’t be as enormous as those from successful crypto trading.

Therefore, make your choice based on your priorities and trading style. Automated trading technologies are sufficiently advanced for both markets. They will support your decision, no matter what choice you make.

SOURCE PAGE

The WhatsApp message landed at 3 am. “Have you seen what’s happening?” Attached was a screenshot of a tweet thread unravelling faster than anyone expected. By morning, one of Nigeria’s most celebrated fintech founders was out of a job. By afternoon, employees were sharing stories they’d kept quiet for months. By evening, the industry was asking a question nobody wanted to answer out loud.

If we can’t trust the people building fintech, why should customers?

2025 became the year Nigerian fintech’s trust crisis went from whisper to scream. Not because fraud was new. Not because bad actors suddenly appeared. But because the scandals that broke this year weren’t about faceless hackers or abstract security failures.

They were about the humans behind the apps. The founders. The systems. The promises turned hollow when tested.

1. The fall of a fintech founder

November brought the kind of scandal that makes investors nervous, and employees update their LinkedIn profiles. Ezra Olubi, co-founder of Paystack, was fired following sexual misconduct allegations. Not after an investigation. Before one concluded.

The details emerged in fragments across social media. Then came Olubi’s own statement claiming he’d been fired unfairly, which only amplified the noise.

Paystack had become the poster child for Nigerian fintech success. Acquired by Stripe for over $200 million in 2020. Operating across multiple African markets. A company parents pointed to when their kids said they wanted to work in tech.

Now it was the company people referenced when discussing workplace culture failures.

Ezra Olubi

The scandal wasn’t just about one person’s alleged behaviour. It exposed how fragile a reputation is in an industry built on trust. If customers can’t trust that their payment processor maintains ethical standards internally, why would they trust it with their money?

2. The equity that never came

October’s EasySpend scandal hit differently. Not because it involved customers losing money, but because it involved employees losing dignity.

The story broke when frustrated workers went public about a scheme they claimed amounted to exploitation. They’d been promised equity in exchange for work. Some had laboured for months on that promise. When it came time to deliver, the equity evaporated like morning mist.

The details painted an ugly picture. Employees are working without proper compensation. Founder allegedly using the lure of startup equity to extract free labour. When workers demanded what they’d been promised, they got excuses instead of shares.

Tobenna Okolo, founder of EasySpend (IMG: Tobenna Okolo on LinkedIn)

It was a different kind of trust violation. Not customers versus company, but founders versus the people who believed in their vision enough to bet their time on it. In an ecosystem already struggling to retain talent, treating employees as disposable contradicts every founder playbook lesson about building sustainable companies.

3. The market for identity

July brought a scandal that made the others look almost quaint. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) uncovered something that sounded too dystopian to be real. Over 12,000 young Nigerians were selling their identity credentials to fintech companies for ₦5,000 apiece.

Bank Verification Numbers. National Identity Numbers. The digital keys to financial systems. Being traded like airtime vouchers.

The fraud ring wasn’t sophisticated. It was volume-based. Thousands of people are willing to sell their biometric and identity data. Fintech companies allegedly buy those credentials to inflate user numbers, bypass KYC requirements, or enable fraudulent accounts.

The implications cascaded outward. If fintechs were building growth on fake accounts created with real people’s stolen identities, what did that say about their actual user numbers? Their transaction volumes? The metrics investors used to justify valuations?

More troubling was what it revealed about desperation. Young Nigerians are so economically squeezed that they’d sell the keys to their financial identity for $5. And companies are willing to buy.

4. When the fintech giant stumbles

Flutterwave’s troubles bridged 2024 and 2025 like a bad hangover. The company had suffered a ₦11 billion breach in April 2024. By January 2025, Nigerian police arrested 179 people in what they called Operation Butterfly Net.

The arrests didn’t end the story. Throughout 2025, questions lingered. How did the breach happen? Why did it take so long to catch the perpetrators? Were customers fully compensated? The answers remained murky even as Flutterwave processed billions in legitimate transactions.

Olugbenga Agboola, CEO, Flutterwave

For the industry, Flutterwave’s ongoing crisis underscored an uncomfortable reality. Even the biggest, most funded, most sophisticated Nigerian fintech entities weren’t immune to massive security failures.

If Flutterwave could get hit for ₦11 billion, what did that mean for smaller platforms with fewer resources?

Examining the root problem

Adebare Akinwunmi, a lawyer who’s watched the Nigerian fintech sector evolve, sees these scandals as symptoms of something deeper than security failures or bad luck.

“Legally, these cases signal a recurring breakdown in both governance structures and leadership accountability within Nigerian fintechs,” he explains. “They reveal weak internal controls, inadequate board oversight, and an over-concentration of power in a few individuals, often founders, with little transparency or documentation.”

But Akinwunmi goes further than pointing at structural problems. He identifies something harder to regulate.

“Beyond structure, they also highlight a more fundamental issue. The character of leadership. Fintechs are trust-based businesses, and when individuals at the helm lack moral restraint or personal accountability, even the best governance frameworks can be circumvented.”

His observation cuts to the heart of why 2025’s scandals felt different. The Ezra Olubi case wasn’t about missing compliance documents. The EasySpend situation wasn’t about inadequate board meetings. These were failures of character dressed up as business decisions.

“In many of these cases, the scandals were not inevitable,” Akinwunmi notes. “They were enabled by leaders who operated without ethical discipline, treating corporate assets and authority as personal extensions of themselves.”

The natural response to a scandal is usually more rules. Stricter regulations. Heavier penalties. More oversight. The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) spent 2025 doing exactly that. Onboarding bans. Increased KYC requirements. Substantial fines.

But Akinwunmi argues the problem isn’t a lack of regulation. “Nigeria’s legal and regulatory frameworks are largely sufficient on paper. Company law, securities regulation, and fintech oversight already provide mechanisms for accountability. The real problem is not the absence of law, but the absence of internal governance culture and ethical leadership within many startups.”

He’s describing a timing gap that creates vulnerability. “What these trust failures expose is a gap in enforcement timing and leadership quality. Many fintechs operate informally until they scale, by which point poor governance habits and sometimes questionable ethical practices are deeply entrenched. Laws can punish misconduct after the fact, but they cannot substitute for leaders with integrity who choose transparency and accountability even when regulation is light.”

It’s the classic startup dilemma. Move fast and break things works until the things you break include trust, employee well-being, and customer funds. By the time companies get big enough to attract serious regulatory attention, the culture is set. The habits are formed. The character of leadership is established.

What breaks when trust does

Each scandal told a different story. A founder’s misconduct. Founders exploiting workers. An identity theft marketplace. A payment giant’s security crisis. But together they revealed something deeper.

Nigerian fintech had grown so fast that it forgot to build the foundations of trust required. Due diligence on founders. Fair treatment of employees. Security infrastructure that actually works. Systems to verify that growth is real, not inflated with fake accounts bought from desperate young people.

For investors who poured $230 million into Nigerian fintech in 2025, the scandals raised uncomfortable questions. How many of their portfolio companies had the same governance gaps?

The same concentration of founder power?

Can the same informal operations be scaled beyond sustainability?

For customers, the calculation became more complex. Yes, fintech offered convenience. Mobile payments. Quick loans. Digital wallets. But at what cost? If your payment processor’s co-founder gets fired for misconduct, is your money safe? If the crypto platform you use can’t refund customers from a 2023 hack by 2025, should you trust it with new deposits?

Akinwunmi’s conclusion is sobering but clear. “Ultimately, fewer scandals will not come from more rules alone, but from having principled individuals in leadership positions who understand that trust, once broken, is almost impossible to rebuild.”

It’s an answer that offers no quick fixes. You can’t regulate character. You can’t audit integrity. You can write all the compliance manuals you want, but if the person at the top sees rules as obstacles rather than guardrails, those manuals become decorative paperwork.

The Nigerian fintech industry faces a choice. It can keep prioritising growth over governance, speed over sustainability, and charisma over character. Or it can do the harder work of building companies led by people who understand that financial services require something more than technical skill and fundraising ability. They require trustworthiness.

SOURCE PAGE

Millions of Americans from the Great Lakes to the Northeast are under the threat of a bomb cyclone as a powerful winter storm sweeps across the region.

Meteorologists issued alerts on Monday, warning that snowfall totals in parts of the Great Lakes, New York, New Hampshire and Maine could reach up to two feet in the hardest-hit areas.

A bomb cyclone, also known as bombogenesis, is a rapidly intensifying low-pressure system capable of producing extreme and dangerous weather.

Travel conditions are expected to deteriorate rapidly across the Great Lakes, where colder air moving in Monday could turn a brief wintry mix into heavy snow and whiteout conditions.

AccuWeather meteorologist Brandon Buckingham said the storm will strengthen quickly across the Midwest and Great Lakes.

‘The storm will bring risks of heavy snow, ice, severe thunderstorms, powerful wind gusts, and heavy rain,’ Buckingham said.

The system is barreling toward several major US cities, placing Green Bay, Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Washington DC, Philadelphia, New York City and Boston in its path.

Forecasts warn that some of these areas could see between six and 10 inches of snow by Tuesday, while isolated locations may receive significantly higher totals.

Millions of Americans from the Great Lakes to the Northeast are under a bomb cyclone warning as a powerful winter storm sweeps across the region. Pictured is Minnesota on Sunday

Meteorologists issued alerts on Monday, warning that snowfall totals in parts of the Great Lakes, New York, New Hampshire, and Maine could reach up to two feet in the hardest-hit areas

According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), certain storms undergo bombogenesis, which happens when a storm’s central pressure drops at least 24 millibars in 24 hours. 

These storms are sometimes called bomb cyclones. Storm intensity is measured by central pressure, so the lower the pressure, the stronger the storm.

Such rapidly strengthening storms are capable of producing heavy rain, blizzard conditions and intense winds that can create dangerous conditions such as downed trees and power outages.

‘If you’re watching TV at night and the weather report comes on and you’re hearing ‘bomb cyclone’ being used, that usually means there’s quite a bit of active weather going on,’ said Andrew Orrison, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service (NWS).

The NWS said more than 30 million Americans were under winter weather alerts on Monday.

The bomb cyclone has hit the Midwest hardest, leaving more than 100,000 people without power amid heavy snow and intense winds. This is the same storm that drenched California with rain and flooding on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.

AccuWeather predicted winds of at least 35 miles per hour from southwestern Minnesota to central Ontario. Combined with snow, these winds could reduce visibility to less than one-quarter mile for several consecutive hours, meeting blizzard criteria.

‘These conditions will make travel extremely difficult and dangerous, if not impossible, for a time,’ said AccuWeather meteorologist Brandon Buckingham.

The bomb cyclone could unleash powerful winds, causing power outages across several US states

Wind advisories extend from the Ohio Valley to the Northeast, with gusts potentially reaching 55 miles per hour. High wind alerts were issued for more than 114 million people across the eastern U.S., according to CBS News.

AccuWeather warned that cities such as Bangor and Portland, Maine; Albany and Binghamton, New York; Scranton, Pennsylvania; and Burlington, Vermont could see even light freezing rain late Sunday into Monday, which may coat roads and sidewalks in ice, making travel treacherous.

‘Because of the storm’s likely designation as a bomb cyclone, rapid pressure changes around its center will generate widespread strong winds, even in areas not experiencing precipitation,’ AccuWeather said. 

‘Gusts of 40-60 mph are expected, potentially disrupting air travel at major airports, including Chicago-O’Hare Monday and New York City-area airports Monday night into Tuesday morning.’

SOURCE PAGE

There has been a flurry of AI voice recording gadgets like Omi, Bee, and Friend that want to capture your voice and let you converse with an AI chatbot. While Bee was acquired by Amazon, and devices like the Stream ring by Sandbar and a new AI ring from former Pebble founder Eric Migicovsky are set to enter the market next year, the jury is still out on the success of wearable AI devices.

Amid all this, Plaud is thriving by targeting professional users with a different approach: a credit card-sized recording device that slips into your wallet. The company says it has shipped more than a million units and that more than 50% of its customers have converted to pro subscriptions.

The company’s latest iteration, the Plaud Note Pro, launched for pre-order in August two years after the original Note, priced at $179. After using the device for over a month, it has become an essential part of my daily carry – and its ultra-thin design makes that easy.

At just 0.12 inches thick – about the width of three stacked credit cards – it’s the thinnest AI recording device on the market and easily fits in a wallet or attaches magnetically to the back of your phone.

The company provides a wallet-like pouch and a magnetic ring accessory that attaches to MagSafe-enabled phones, allowing you to mount the Note Pro on the back of your iPhone or compatible Android device. The device is also very light at 30 grams, and you won’t feel the weight if you keep the Note Pro in your wallet.

One of the key differences between Plaud and other AI wearables is that the Note Pro doesn’t need to be connected to your phone to record audio. The device has 64GB of onboard memory, so it can store a large volume of recordings without transferring them to your phone or uploading them to the cloud.

Pluad Note Pro is as thick as a coaster Image Credits: Ivan Mehta

Plaud Note Pro has four MEMS (Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems) microphones to pick up audio from all directions. While the company advertises that the effective audio range is 16.4 feet, I have recorded talks at conferences while sitting far from the stage and gotten satisfactory results. The device also has one voice processing unit for noise suppression, voice isolation, and echo cancellation.

Techcrunch event

San Francisco
|
October 13-15, 2026

The recording device has impressive battery life. I went to a conference earlier this month with a fully charged device and recorded a few interviews and talks there. After that, I used the device for some phone call recording and personal note-taking. Despite all that use, the device still had 55% charge after 15 days. The company says you can wring 30 hours of continuous recording and 60 days of standby from a single charge.

Plaud’s new device comes with a proprietary charger with a USB-C cable on the other end. The device takes two hours to charge from 0%, and then you are set for at least a couple of weeks unless you are recording hours of content.

Image Credits: PlaudImage Credits:Plaud.ai

One problem with wearable AI devices is that you have to ensure, through an indicator, that the device is recording (or has stopped recording). Thankfully, Plaud Note Pro has a tiny screen that displays your recording status. You can also press a button while recording to highlight a point a speaker is making, and it will show up in the AI-powered summary prominently. The screen also shows you the remaining battery level.

There is intentionality behind recording with this device. You also get haptic feedback for starting and stopping the recording. The visual indication and your action of pressing the button also make it easier to signal to a others in the meeting that you are recording the session.

Image Credits: Ivan Mehta

You can choose to just record sessions and export them to another AI transcription service you are subscribed to. Plaud natively provides 300 minutes of free transcription every month. The company also lets you customize AI-generated notes through templates suited for different profiles and tasks. You can create your own template as well. The transcription is accurate in most instances, and now you can also access the recording, transcript, and notes through a website. The company has also addressed the problem my former colleague Brian Heater had of tapping on the word and not being played the corresponding recording.

While a pendant or pin-like form factor is possibly easier to carry, the card-sized recorder offers better microphones and more versatile placement options. It’s worth buying the $179 gadget if you take a lot of in-person meetings.

SOURCE PAGE