Keep CRM data accurate, complete, and usable with better standards, enrichment, governance, validation, and ongoing quality monitoring.

The post CRM Data Management: Best Practices for Cleaner Revenue Data appeared first on TechRepublic.

Keep CRM data accurate, complete, and usable with better standards, enrichment, governance, validation, and ongoing quality monitoring.

The post CRM Data Management: Best Practices for Cleaner Revenue Data appeared first on TechRepublic.

Mandiant founder and cybersecurity veteran brings more than 30 years of public and private sector experience to Amazon’s board.

The post Mandiant Founder Kevin Mandia Joins Amazon Board appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Bitcoin Magazine

Capital B Buys 376 Bitcoins in Its Biggest Purchase of 2026

European bitcoin treasury Capital B has announced a BTC buy, snapping up 376 coins — one week after it said Blockstream boss Adam Back was investing in the company. 

The Euronext Growth-listed company said Tuesday that it now owns 3,521 bitcoins — worth over $277 million at today’s prices — making it the 25th biggest publicly traded bitcoin treasury in the world, according to Bitcoin Treasuries data. 

Capital B’s buy was for €25.3 million (over $29 million), according to its announcement. 

Just last week, the company said that top bitcoiner Adam Back, who heads up bitcoin infrastructure company Blockstream, had invested €7.6 million ($8.8 million) in Capital B to help with its buys. 

The firm in August said it had raised €21 million ($24 million) in a private placement backed by Back and asset manager TOBAM. 

The bitcoin treasury’s stock was trading 2% lower on Tuesday. 

Capital B built most of its bitcoin position through fundraising rounds during the first half of 2026. 

In May, it snapped up 192 coins for €13 million after completing three capital raises.

The company, which calls itself “Europe’s first Bitcoin treasury company,” is trying to build a bigger bitcoin position as other treasuries look to raise funds and accelerate their buys. 

Capital B says on its website that it wants to eventually hold 210,000 bitcoins. “Our objective is simple: accumulate 1% of Bitcoin’s total supply by 2033,” it reads. 

Digital asset treasuries became big in 2025 as more publicly traded companies tried to follow in the footsteps of Nasdaq-listed Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy), which started buying bitcoin in 2025. 

Hundreds of publicly traded companies started buying bitcoin — with many buying other cryptocurrencies — to boost their stock prices. But since the price of bitcoin started dropping, a number of them are now under water or have had to sell their holdings. 

Strategy, the largest corporate holder of the asset, has this year slowed down its bitcoin buys and instead pivoted to building a stronger cash balance and buying back its stock as the price of its shares has tumbled. 

This post Capital B Buys 376 Bitcoins in Its Biggest Purchase of 2026 first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Castle Opens Its Bitcoin Savings Stack to Individuals

Castle, the company behind an automated bitcoin financial stack for businesses, has said it is opening its platform to individuals, bringing its high-yield product to personal accounts along with a first for the category: the option to take dividend income in bitcoin at whatever ratio the customer picks.

The yield comes from STRC, Strategy‘s perpetual preferred stock, which Castle added earlier this year and which currently pays a 12% annual dividend on a semi-monthly schedule. 

Holders can take 100% of that payout in cash, 100% in bitcoin, or anything in between, according to a Tuesday statement. Most Castle customers land in the middle, the company said, covering operating expenses with cash while the remainder compounds into bitcoin automatically at every payout.

“Investors have long faced a choice between earning steady yield and holding bitcoin. Castle eliminates that trade-off,” co-founder and CTO João Almeida said. “By enabling a portion of dividend income to be automatically converted into bitcoin, so customers get both cash flow and long-term upside.”

The broader pitch is consolidation: Castle puts operating cash, fixed income, and bitcoin accumulation on one platform, cutting out the shuffle between a bank, an onramp, and a brokerage. The system is built automation-first: users define a strategy once and the platform executes it.

Until now, Castle served business entities exclusively — restaurants, gyms, churches, accounting firms, e-commerce shops, auto dealers, SaaS companies, real estate, and non-profits among them. The push into personal accounts came from those same customers.

“Feedback we heard over and over from business owners was: ‘I love this stack — when can I use it personally?'” co-founder and CEO Stephen Cole said. “Today we’re answering that. The same automated bitcoin-powered financial stack that runs their company’s balance sheet can now run their personal finances.”

Castle was founded by Cole and Almeida and is backed by Boost VC and Winklevoss Capital. More information about the company’s product can be found here.

This post Castle Opens Its Bitcoin Savings Stack to Individuals first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Strategy Halted Its Bitcoin Buys Again Last Week 

Bitcoin treasury Strategy has halted stacking sats — again. 

Just one week after resuming its bitcoin buying following a 10-week hiatus, the Nasdaq-listed company has put its BTC purchases on hold again. 

Instead, the firm continued buying back its stock, repurchasing $176 million of STRC and increasing the size of its digital credit securities repurchase program from $1 billion to $2 billion, according to a Tuesday regulatory filing and announcement from founder and chairman Michael Saylor.  

The company still holds 845,050 bitcoins worth over $66 billion at today’s prices and $6.5 billion in dollar reserves. The bitcoins were bought at an average price of $63.73 billion, according to Tuesday’s filing. 

Strategy shares (NASDAQ: MSTR) were trading more than 3% lower Tuesday morning in New York. 

The company paused its bitcoin buys in June, instead focusing on building a cash buffer, buying back its stock and even sometimes selling some of its holdings. 

Strategy has defended its bitcoin sales, with CEO Phong Le saying that the company now has a “bullet-proof balance sheet” because of the move, and that it was the “right trade at the time” to sell when it did. 

In the company’s quarterly earnings in July, Strategy posted a $8.22 billion loss. But Le reassured investors that the firm’s current paper loss was nothing to worry about.

“We’re the J.P. Morgan of the crypto economy, so whether we sell 1,000 Bitcoin out of 840,000 to me is irrelevant to the conversation,” Le said. 

Strategy — formerly MicroStrategy — is an enterprise software company that pivoted to buying and holding bitcoin in 2020. 

It first bought the cryptocurrency to protect its shareholders from inflation. Since then, it has aggressively bought the asset and pivoted to being a bitcoin treasury. 

Investors can now buy its shares to get heightened exposure to the cryptocurrency, or get paid a yield via its digital credit products. 

This post Strategy Halted Its Bitcoin Buys Again Last Week  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

• The FSCA issued 20-year debarment orders against three executives of Africa Bitcoin Corporation, restricting them from financial sector roles.
• Founder and CEO Warren Wheatley, CIO Akshay Karan, and investor relations head Tatum Wheatley are named in the orders.
• ABC’s board placed Wheatley and Karan on precautionary leave and suspended Tatum Wheatley’s consulting agreement.
• Stafford Masie has been appointed interim CEO to lead the company.
• The FSCA imposed no findings or penalties against ABC or its subsidiaries.
• The executives dispute the findings and plan to seek reconsideration from the Financial Services Tribunal.

FSCA Issues Debarment Orders Against ABC Leadership

South Africa’s Financial Sector Conduct Authority has debarred three senior executives at JSE-listed Africa Bitcoin Corporation (ABC). The FSCA’s decisions were communicated confidentially to the named individuals on August 30, 2026.

Individuals named in the orders include ABC founder and CEO Warren Wheatley, chief investment officer Akshay Karan, and Tatum Wheatley, who heads media and investor relations.

The debarments last for 20 years and bar all three from providing financial products or services, serving as key persons at financial institutions, or otherwise serving financial institutions in any capacity. The FSCA has not publicly disclosed its reasons for the action.

ABC, which markets itself as Africa’s first listed bitcoin treasury company, disclosed the decisions to shareholders via a JSE SENS announcement after markets closed.

The company in its public disclosure stressed that the regulator’s findings apply only to the individuals. No other entity within ABC, including subsidiary Altvest Credit Opportunities Fund (ACOF), faces any FSCA finding, penalty, or debarment.

Board Response & Executive Leadership Changes

The board moved the following day quickly. Wheatley and Karan were placed on precautionary leave from their executive roles for an initial one-month period, subject to review. Tatum Wheatley’s consulting arrangement was suspended for the same window. None of the three will exercise authority on ABC’s behalf during this period.

Warren Wheatley also resigned as a company director effective August 31, and all three stepped down from ACOF’s board the same day.

ABC and ACOF Chairperson Norma Sephuma said, “We acted immediately to establish the governance arrangements required to protect the Group and maintain operational continuity. The relevant board resignations have taken effect, interim leadership arrangements are in place, and clear responsibilities have been established across the Group. […] Given the positions held by the Individuals, the Board recognised the need for an immediate and credible governance response.”

She added, “The matters underlying the decisions date back to 2022 and arose before the current Board was constituted in its present form. We recognise the significant consequences of the decisions for Warren, Akshay and Tatum.

They have informed ABC that they dispute the findings and intend to exercise their available legal rights. The Board will respect that process while maintaining an independent and objective position.”

Stafford Masie Steps In as Interim CEO

Stafford Masie, an existing executive director and the company’s Director of Bitcoin Strategy, has taken over as interim CEO. He assumes oversight of group operations including ACOF. Masie, previously Altvest Capital’s chairman and a Bitmach co-founder, said the board recognises the personal toll on the three executives while stressing its own duty to protect the business they helped build.

“My responsibility, together with the Board and the broader team, is to hold the line: to provide stability, protect what has been built and maintain the momentum of the business while they exercise their legal rights to challenge the FSCA decisions.”

​Governance in Africa’s Bitcoin Treasury Space

​Formerly known as Altvest Capital, the company made history in early 2025 as the first African publicly listed entity to adopt a corporate Bitcoin treasury strategy. ABC explicitly modelled its reserve thesis after MicroStrategy.

​Under Wheatley’s initial leadership and Masie’s strategic oversight, ABC outlined an ambitious plan to use a Bitcoin-backed treasury to lower borrowing costs, optimise private-market investments for retail investors, and back SME loan facilities across the continent.

ABC has expanded its trading footprint across secondary listings including A2X, Namibia’s NSX, the US OTCQB, and Deutsche Börse. A planned secondary listing on the Access segment of the Aquis Growth Market in London was recently delayed due to a “technical matter.”

This sudden executive turbulence, even one the FSCA has confined to individuals rather than the corporate entity, tests how resilient that model is when its most visible executives are sidelined simultaneously.

​Under Masie’s leadership, the company’s focus turns to preserving operational stability across its SME credit operations while navigating the legal outcomes of the Financial Services Tribunal appeal.

For other African firms building bitcoin-backed balance sheets, the episode is a reminder that regulatory scrutiny of the people running these ventures can move as fast as scrutiny of the assets themselves.

Originally published at https://cryptoafrica.news on September 3, 2026.

FSCA Debars Africa Bitcoin Corp CEO Warren Wheatley and Two Senior Executives— Crypto Africa was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Why Extended Nuclear Deterrence Still Matters

Jennifer Lind and Daryl Press make a compelling argument in a recent article about the future willingness of the United States to provide extended nuclear deterrence, sometimes referred to as the “nuclear umbrella” to over 30 allies. Since the early days of the Cold War, the U.S. made a commitment to defend Europe against Soviet aggression, and under extreme conditions, included the use of nuclear weapons. Similar assurances were made to Japan, South Korea and Australia. The protection provided by this nuclear umbrella has been a hallmark of international order for decades as allies trusted the U.S. would protect them and therefore had no reason to develop their own nuclear weapon capabilities. Lind and Press rightly point out the security environment has changed dramatically, and the “order” created by the United States during the Cold War no longer exists. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Lind and Press argue Russia’s nuclear threat on a global scale is much diminished with Russia focused on its boundaries with eastern Europe and less concerned with “the global balance of power”. Similarly, Lind and Press view North Korea’s nuclear weapons development as a regional security issue with Kim Jong Un more interested in regime survival than peninsular conquest. They further argue conflicts today are largely regional in nature and question the commitment of the United States to engage in a nuclear conflict on behalf of an ally thousands of miles away. Thus, they claim the “nuclear umbrella” is broken.

The Nuclear Umbrella Still Exists

On the surface, it’s easy to believe this argument. The first Trump administration clearly stated an intent to put “America First” in 2017 and the second Trump administration signaled skepticism toward alliance commitments and their associated costs. Abroad, there is potential that this signaling from Washington also includes the commitment to extended nuclear deterrence. President Trump’s new National Security Strategy (NSS) published in 2025 does not mention extended nuclear deterrence or the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. Similarly, the 2026 National Defense Strategy (NDS) does not “explicitly mention extended deterrence” and instead places the “primary responsibility” for their own defense on them with limited support from the U.S. And lastly, the current Trump administration has not and most likely will not issue a Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). The first NPR was released in 1994 every subsequent administration has issued one until President Trump took office again in 2024. The NPR is a blueprint which describes the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. security strategy. This document contains critical messaging on the capabilities, numbers, and modernization efforts of nuclear weapons and under what conditions the U.S. potentially would or would not use nuclear weapons. To be sure, the absence of explicit language on extended nuclear deterrence in the NSS and NDS and the lack of an NPR are departures from the U.S.’s historical stance providing nuclear top cover and nonproliferation of nuclear weapons.

Allies and partners of the U.S. have obviously taken notice and started conversations on how to proceed especially given continued Russian aggression, Chinese and North Korean nuclear weapons development, and what they might perceive as uncertainty of the U.S. as a nuclear deterrent backstop.

The United Kingdom and France recently pledged increased cooperation with nuclear weapons with the signing of the Northwood Declaration in 2025. French President Macron also rolled out a policy of “advanced deterrence” aimed at potentially providing nuclear forces to various European allies. Additionally, Japan, South Korea and Australia are all deeply concerned about nuclear weapons development in both China and North Korea. As a result from the proximate threat, some Japanese and South Korean officials have publicly discussed nuclear weapons, a topic previously considered taboo.

However, there is also plenty of evidence to support the fact that while the nuclear umbrella is bent and tattered, it’s not broken.

Although the current NSS and NDS do not explicitly mention extended nuclear deterrence, they do not explicitly eschew the notion either. In fact, the NDS states Europe should take “primary responsibility for its own conventional defense…” making a clear distinction between conventional and nuclear forces. Despite much talk of NATO needing to pull more of its own weight regarding security, the U.S. remains committed to the alliance. Since 1954, the U.S. pledged to protect NATO members and currently has around 100 air-delivered nuclear weapons deployed to various bases in Europe. In addressing the NATO Defense Ministerial, Under Secretary of War for Policy, Elbridge Colby, stated, “Thus, for the United States, our responsibility is to be clear, candid and consistent. We will continue to provide the U.S. extended nuclear deterrent.” Additionally, the U.S. continues to be active in the NATO Nuclear Planning Group, the senior policy body for NATO nuclear issues. Despite U.S. signaling a “scaling back” of conventional support to NATO, there is no plan to remove any of these nuclear weapons from Europe.

There are similar extended nuclear deterrence concerns from Japan and South Korea, especially the suggestion that both should take on more of the financial burden for their defense, the U.S. commitment to both is bit clearer. In February of last year, the U.S. Secretary of State met with the Foreign Minister of Japan and the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea to “reaffirm the unshakable trilateral partnership” between the three countries. This meeting underscored the historical commitment of the U.S. to the defense Japan and South Korea to include extended nuclear deterrence.

Why Extended Nuclear Deterrence Matters

What’s missing in many of the arguments concerning U.S. extended nuclear deterrence is how it has underwritten the concept of nuclear nonproliferation for decades. In 1968, the U.S. pledged cooperation in limiting the spread of nuclear technology as one of the first signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Though limited and certainly not perfect, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) is widely considered one of the most successful arms control treaties ever written by limiting the spread of nuclear weapons while aiding risk reduction of nuclear weapons use. As mentioned earlier, dozens of countries have chosen not to pursue development of nuclear weapons (and pledged not do so as signatories of the NPT) because they determined the extended nuclear deterrent guarantee provided by the U.S. to be reliable and most importantly, credible. Additionally, any country who may feel abandoned by the nuclear umbrella provided by the U.S. and may choose to pursue development of their own nuclear weapon faces myriad challenges. First, many are bound by the NPT and even if they were not, often lack the resources to develop nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Second, all states, even those with the technical know-how to proceed with a nuclear weapons program, would introduce into the nuclear “club” another independent launch authority, more command-and-control systems with varying levels of capability, unknown decision-making processes during crises, and more opportunities for proliferation, miscalculation, and accidents. Following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the one thing the international community could agree upon was developing a strong prohibition against the use of nuclear weapons. Many resolved crises throughout history where nuclear weapons loomed in the background reinforced the idea that the use of nuclear weapons was unthinkable. The spread of nuclear weapons to more independent states does not simply mean we live in a world with more of them, it substantially increases the number of situations where they become increasingly integrated into routine statecraft and thus, their potential use more thinkable.

The Strategic Consequences

Despite concerns about the credibility of U.S. extended nuclear deterrence that have emerged in some allied capitals, the United States should not become resigned to the prospect of allies leaving the nuclear umbrella. Doing so would weaken the nonproliferation regime, increase incentives for independent nuclear programs, and ultimately leave the United States confronting a more dangerous strategic environment. The U.S. should continue to signal that the credibility of extended nuclear deterrence rests upon strong conventional capabilities and even stronger, unmistakable political resolve with our allies while keeping nuclear use as the final safeguard. Increased proliferation of nuclear weapons does not achieve that objective.

The United States is unique among states that possess nuclear weapons because it has used the world’s most capable nuclear weapons arsenal to prevent nuclear proliferation rather than encourage it. Thus, extended nuclear deterrence and nuclear nonproliferation are inseparable. The enduring contribution to international security by the United States has been and should continue to be the guarantee of nuclear extended deterrence to uphold nonproliferation and preserve the longstanding objective of nuclear non-use.

In no uncertain terms should the U.S. become “comfortable” with more states acquiring their own nuclear weapons resulting from of a lack of confidence that Washington will continue to be the nuclear guarantor. Despite periodic political signals that make some allies nervous, Washington has been remarkably consistent, across multiple administrations, in its policy toward extended nuclear deterrence. States that question U.S. commitment should consider whether other alternatives would enhance their security. The answer is almost certainly no.

The views expressed here are those of the author alone and do not necessarily represent the views, policies, or positions of the U.S. Department of Defense or its components, to include the Department of the Navy or the U.S. Naval War College.

The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals. Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.

Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief

Bitcoin Magazine

Strategy CEO Defends Bitcoin Sale as the ‘Right Trade’ 

The CEO of bitcoin treasury Strategy brushed off concerns investors may have about the company selling some of its stash, instead telling reporters that the move was to strengthen its balance sheet. 

Speaking to Bloomberg on Tuesday, Phong Le said that the company now has a “bullet-proof balance sheet” and it was the “right trade at the time” to sell bitcoin when it did. 

Strategy, the largest corporate holder of bitcoin, restarted its buying the cryptocurrency on Monday after a 10-week pause. After halting its buys in June, it instead sold small amounts of its bitcoin and built two cash reserves. 

“We don’t really make decisions specifically on bitcoin’s price,” Le said. 

He added: “We’re a net accumulator, and so I don’t sit around and say, ‘Well, when am I going to sell Bitcoin next?’ It comes down to a bit of a capital management mathematical equation of when we would do it.”

“I don’t foresee us selling bitcoin as we enter into what I consider a pretty heavy bull market.” 

Strategy — formerly MicroStrategy — is an enterprise software company that pivoted to buying and holding bitcoin in 2020. 

It first bought the cryptocurrency to protect its shareholders from inflation but has since aggressively bought the asset and pivoted to being a bitcoin treasury. It is now the largest corporate holder of the cryptocurrency, with 845,050 bitcoins worth $65.1 billion at today’s prices. 

Investors can buy Strategy’s Nasdaq-listed stock (MSTR) to get heightened exposure to bitcoin’s performance. 

This year, Strategy has bought back some of its preferred stock, STRC, which is trading at a discount, and increasing its dollar cushion.  

In the company’s quarterly earnings in July, Strategy posted a $8.22 billion loss. But Le said the firm’s current paper loss wasn’t important for the time being, and that next year, its stock would soar again. 

“We’re the J.P. Morgan of the crypto economy, so whether we sell 1,000 Bitcoin out of 840,000 to me is irrelevant to the conversation,” Le said. 

Strategy stock (NASDAQ: MSTR) was trading 2% lower on Wednesday. Year-to-date, the stock is down 22%.

This post Strategy CEO Defends Bitcoin Sale as the ‘Right Trade’  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Strategy Opposes MSCI Proposal, Says Bitcoin Treasury Firms Are Being Targeted a Second Time

Bitcoin treasury Strategy has blasted Morgan Stanley Capital International’s proposal to exclude it from its Global Investable Market Indexes, calling it “misguided” and “flawed.” 

Writing in a letter to MSCI Monday, the Nasdaq-listed Bitcoin behemoth’s founder, Michael Saylor, and CEO, Phong Le, said that the company was discriminating against digital asset businesses. 

MSCI said earlier this month that it was consulting on a plan to define “non-operating companies” and make them ineligible for its Global Investable Market Indexes. The removal of such companies would exclude firms like Strategy from indexes visible to a large pool of institutional investors. 

MSCI’s latest proposal comes after the company in 2025 proposed excluding from its indices all companies whose digital-asset holdings represent 50% or more of total assets. 

“MSCI’s continued effort to discriminate against digital assets is misguided and calls into question MSCI’s neutrality and reliability,” Strategy’s letter read. 

It added: “The proposal, like the 2025 proposal that MSCI withdrew, is discriminatory, arbitrary, and misguided. If adopted, the proposal would have no meaningful impact on Strategy’s business, but it would profoundly harm MSCI’s reputation as a reliable and neutral index provider. Like the 2025 proposal, the current proposal should be withdrawn.”

Strategy argued that MSCI was relying on unprecedented classifications to define Bitcoin as a “non-operating” asset. Strategy said it reports its Bitcoin business as an operating segment and its Bitcoin gains and losses as operating expenses. 

The company said that MSCI’s methodology for targeting “non-operating companies” was “arbitrary and unexplained,” and was just a way of unfairly targeting digital asset treasuries. 

Strategy further argued that the company is an operating one, employing 1,500 people across the globe and actively using its Bitcoin to “create shareholder value.”

Strategy — formerly MicroStrategy — is an enterprise software company that pivoted to buying and holding bitcoin in 2020. It first bought the cryptocurrency to protect shareholders but has since aggressively bought the asset and is now the largest corporate holder of the cryptocurrency, with 845,050 bitcoins worth $65.8 billion at today’s prices. 

Investors can buy Strategy’s Nasdaq-listed stock (MSTR) to get heightened exposure to bitcoin’s performance. 

MSTR closed Monday trading 4% higher. Year-to-date, the stock is down 15%. 

This post Strategy Opposes MSCI Proposal, Says Bitcoin Treasury Firms Are Being Targeted a Second Time first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Strategy Resumes Bitcoin Buying After 10-Week Hiatus 

Bitcoin treasury Strategy resumed its bitcoin buys last week, snapping up nearly $370 million in the leading cryptocurrency, according to a Monday announcement from the company. 

A filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission shows that Strategy bought 4,603 bitcoins for $369.7 million between August 24 to August 30. Each coin was bought at an average price of $80,318, according to the filing. 

The buy comes after Strategy paused its bitcoin buys in June, instead focusing on building a cash buffer, buying back its stock and even sometimes selling some of its holdings. 

“Strategy is evolving from one-way capital issuance to active capital management,” Strategy CEO Phong Le said in June.

“We intend to move between issuing securities when capital is attractive and repurchasing securities when our instruments trade at levels that make buybacks accretive. This flexibility is designed to create shareholder value, improve corporate performance, and strengthen the quality and market standing of Strategy’s securities in the eyes of investors.”

Strategy now has $5.1 billion in its USD Reserve and $1.61 billion its new USD Cash reserve — which was announced last week. 

The company holds 845,050 bitcoins worth $65.8 billion at today’s prices. 

Software company Strategy — formerly MicroStrategy — began buying bitcoin in August 2020 as a treasury strategy to boost shareholder returns during the pandemic. 

It has since spent more than $63.7 billion on buying bitcoin and remains by far the largest corporate holder of Bitcoin in the world. Its approach spawned a wave of copycat companies that have since adopted similar crypto-treasury strategies of their own.

Chairman and Strategy founder Michael Saylor has said that the company is now focusing on creating digital credit: high-yield products, such as its preferred equity, STRC, which are backed by its bitcoin holdings. 

Strategy’s stock (NASDAQ: MSTR) was trading slightly higher on Monday morning in New York. Year-to-date, its price has dipped nearly 20%. 

Bitcoin was trading for $77,821 on Monday morning in New York after hitting a high last week of $81,281. Over a 24-hour period, the coin now sits unmoved, but over a 30-day period, it has jumped by more than 24%. 

This post Strategy Resumes Bitcoin Buying After 10-Week Hiatus  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Genius Group Sets $2B Dual Treasury Target Months After Liquidating Bitcoin Holdings

Genius Group has announced a new plan to buy bitcoin — just months after selling its entire stash. 

The NYSE-listed AI-powered education company said in a Thursday statement that it was aiming to build parallel AI and bitcoin treasuries worth a combined $1.6 billion, with total company assets targeted at $2 billion by fiscal year 2031. 

Just in April, Genius Group sold its entire bitcoin reserves to repay $8.5 million in debt. The sale came as a number of digital asset treasuries were struggling due to a drop in crypto prices. 

“Every dollar of preferred capital deployed into our bitcoin and AI Treasury that generates returns above the preferred dividend rate flows directly to our ordinary shareholders’ net asset value,” Genius Group CEO Roger James Hamilton said. 

Genius Group first adopted a “Bitcoin first” strategy in late 2024, building a position that grew to 440 BTC by February 2025. 

That effort was disrupted when a court order blocked the company from raising funds or issuing shares, forcing a series of sales that reduced its holdings — including roughly 86 BTC sold in a single month, leaving about 84 BTC by February 2026. 

The company has now sold its remaining bitcoin entirely, using the proceeds to eliminate $8.5 million in debt. The liquidation reportedly came at a loss, leaving Genius Group with no crypto reserves.

Against that backdrop, the company is now proposing to rebuild a bitcoin treasury — this time alongside a similarly sized AI treasury — funded not through equity sales but through a new preferred stock offering.

Genius Group intends to draw on its $1.2 billion SEC-cleared shelf registration to issue Perpetual Preferred Securities, targeting an initial $12.5 million raise. Proceeds would be split between the AI treasury, the bitcoin treasury and a cash reserve covering about 18 months of dividend payments. 

The plan mirrors moves by the biggest corporate holder of bitcoin, Strategy. The company has raised over $16 billion via perpetual preferred stock for its bitcoin holdings. Nasdaq-listed Strive Asset Management has raised more than $150 million similarly. 

Genius Group says preferred capital will become its primary funding tool going forward, reducing reliance on its ordinary share ATM program.

This post Genius Group Sets $2B Dual Treasury Target Months After Liquidating Bitcoin Holdings first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

With tens of thousands of plugins available across the internet, website owners face a common dilemma: where should they source their WordPress tools? While third-party marketplaces exist, having a plugin officially listed in the WordPress Plugin Directory—like the ScopeQuote Estimator—carries distinct advantages for both the developer and the end-user.

Unmatched Trust and Security The WordPress Plugin Directory is not a free-for-all; it is a highly curated ecosystem. Before a plugin is accepted, it must undergo a rigorous review process by the WordPress team. They scrutinize the code for security vulnerabilities, licensing compliance, and performance issues. When you download a plugin from the official directory, you are choosing software that has met strict, community-driven standards.

Seamless Updates and Maintenance One of the most significant advantages of the official directory is the integrated update delivery system. When developers release security patches or new features, users receive update notifications directly in their WordPress dashboard. This one-click update process ensures that websites remain secure and functional without requiring manual FTP uploads.

Incredible Visibility and SEO For plugin developers, the WordPress Directory is a massive driver of organic traffic. The repository ranks incredibly high on search engines. A well-optimized readme file can put a plugin directly in front of thousands of users actively searching for specific solutions.

Community Support and Feedback Plugins in the repository benefit from built-in support forums. This creates a transparent environment where users can leave reviews, ask questions, and help each other. It fosters a cycle of continuous improvement, ensuring that tools evolve alongside the needs of the community.

Whether you are a developer looking to launch your tool or a business owner searching for a secure solution, the WordPress Plugin Directory remains the gold standard for quality and reliability.

The Strategic Advantage: Why Being Listed in the WordPress Plugin Directory Matters was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

SecurityWeek talks to Chris Wheeler, CISO at Resilience, about his journey from the Navy to becoming a cybersecurity leader.

The post CISO Conversations: Chris Wheeler – Trust Is the Job, From the Navy to the C-Suite appeared first on SecurityWeek.

Brand strategy and brand development are closely connected, but they are not the same thing. Brand strategy establishes the direction a business wants its brand to take, while brand development is the broader process of building, shaping, and growing that brand around a defined direction.

The distinction becomes more important as businesses compete across increasingly crowded markets and customer touchpoints. Statista forecasts worldwide advertising spending to reach US$1.26 trillion in 2026, showing the scale of investment businesses are making to reach audiences and strengthen their market presence.

However, spending more on marketing does not automatically create a stronger brand. Businesses need clarity about what they stand for, whom they want to reach, how they want to be perceived, and how those decisions should translate into a consistent brand experience.

This is where brand strategy and brand development play different but connected roles. A clear strategy provides direction, while brand development turns that direction into a brand that can be established, communicated, and strengthened over time.

What is Brand Strategy?

Brand strategy is the long term plan that defines how a business wants to position itself in the market and how it intends to build a distinct relationship with its target audience. It establishes the strategic choices that shape the brand’s identity, communication, positioning, and overall market perception.

A brand strategy typically considers the business purpose, target audience, competitive landscape, positioning, values, personality, value proposition, and key messaging. These decisions help a business establish a clear identity and differentiate itself from competing brands offering similar products or services.

The brand strategy also provides direction for marketing and communication decisions. When a business knows what it represents and who it is trying to reach, its messaging and customer experiences can remain more focused and consistent across different channels.

In practical terms, brand strategy answers questions such as: Who are we as a brand? Who do we serve? What makes us different? What should customers associate with us? And what position should we occupy in the market?

What is Brand Development?

Brand development is the broader process of creating, establishing, and growing a brand based on its strategic direction. It takes the decisions defined through brand strategy and develops them into a complete brand that can be introduced to the market and strengthened as the business evolves.

The brand development can involve market and audience research, positioning, messaging, identity development, brand communication, customer experience, and other activities required to establish a recognizable presence. The exact scope depends on whether the business is creating a new brand, repositioning an existing one, entering a new market, or expanding its offerings.

Unlike brand strategy, which primarily defines the direction of the brand, brand development is concerned with building and advancing the brand over time. It can therefore extend beyond the initial strategic planning stage as businesses respond to market changes, customer expectations, and new growth opportunities.

A structured brand development process gives businesses a framework for turning strategic decisions into a brand that can consistently communicate its value and develop stronger recognition in its market.

Brand Strategy vs Brand Development

Brand strategy and brand development are closely related, but they serve different purposes in building a successful brand. Brand strategy establishes the strategic direction of a business, while brand development covers the broader process of creating, establishing, and strengthening the brand based on that direction.

Purpose

The primary purpose of a brand strategy is to define how a business should position itself and what it should represent to its target audience. It establishes decisions around brand purpose, positioning, values, differentiation, audience, and messaging so the business has a clear direction.

Brand development takes that direction further by turning strategic decisions into a developed brand that can be communicated consistently across the market. It helps businesses establish a recognizable identity and build a stronger connection with their target customers.

In simple terms, brand strategy determines what the brand should stand for and where it should compete, while brand development focuses on building that brand around the defined direction.

Scope

Brand strategy has a focused strategic scope. It deals primarily with the decisions that determine how a brand should be positioned, differentiated, and perceived by its target audience.

Brand development has a broader scope because it can include strategic planning as well as the development of brand identity, messaging systems, communication frameworks, customer touchpoints, and other elements required to establish the brand in practice.

This is why the terms can sometimes appear interchangeable. A brand development initiative may include the creation or refinement of a brand strategy, but brand development generally extends beyond the strategy itself.

Key Activities

Brand strategy commonly involves defining the target audience, researching competitors, establishing brand positioning, identifying differentiators, defining brand purpose and values, developing the value proposition, and creating a clear messaging direction.

Brand development can incorporate these activities while also extending into areas such as brand identity, naming, visual systems, brand voice, communication guidelines, customer experience, and implementation across relevant touchpoints.

The exact activities vary according to the business and its objectives. A new company building a brand from scratch may require a broader brand development process, while an established business with a strong identity may primarily need to revisit its brand strategy before making targeted changes.

Business Stage

Brand strategy is particularly important when a business needs to clarify its market position or make significant strategic decisions about its brand. This can happen when launching a new business, targeting a different audience, entering a new market, or responding to increased competition.

Brand development can occur at these stages as well, but it is also relevant when a business needs to build upon an existing strategy. For example, a growing company may need to expand its brand identity, refine its messaging, or establish consistent brand systems across new products and markets.

Businesses can also revisit their broader brand development vs branding vs brand management approach when their existing brand no longer reflects their business direction or customer expectations.

Expected Outcomes

The primary outcome of brand strategy is clarity. It gives the business a defined position, a clear understanding of its audience, and a strategic framework for making brand and communication decisions.

Brand development aims to create a more developed and usable brand. Its outcomes can include a defined identity, consistent messaging, stronger market recognition, and a framework that allows the brand to be applied across different customer and business touchpoints.

Neither replaces the other. A strong brand strategy without proper development can remain a set of ideas that are difficult to apply, while brand development without a clear strategy can produce a brand that looks consistent but lacks a meaningful position in the market.

Brand Strategy vs Brand Development: Which Does Your Business Need?

The choice between brand strategy and brand development depends largely on your business’s current position, objectives, and challenges. In many cases, businesses do not need to choose one over the other because brand strategy provides the direction that broader brand development activities can build upon.

Starting a New Business

A new business should generally begin with brand strategy. Before investing heavily in visual identity, marketing campaigns, or other brand assets, it needs to understand its target audience, define its market positioning, establish its value proposition, and determine what it wants the brand to represent.

Once these strategic decisions are clear, brand development can turn them into a complete and recognizable brand. Starting with a strong brand strategy also makes subsequent branding and marketing decisions more consistent.

When Your Brand Positioning Is Unclear

If customers struggle to understand what your business offers or why it is different, the immediate issue may be strategic rather than visual. A clear brand strategy can help define the target audience, competitive position, value proposition, and message the business wants to communicate.

Brand development can then build on that clarity by translating the refined positioning into the wider brand experience. This approach is particularly useful for businesses that have grown organically without establishing a defined business branding strategy.

Launching a New Product or Service

Introducing a new product or service can require both brand strategy and brand development. The business first needs to determine how the offering fits within its existing brand and what position it should occupy in the market.

If the new offering changes how customers perceive the company, the wider brand may also need to evolve. Brand development can help extend the existing identity, messaging, and customer experience while keeping them connected to the overall brand strategy.

Rebranding an Existing Business

Rebranding often requires a combination of brand strategy and brand development. The strategy determines why the brand needs to change, who it needs to connect with, and what position it should pursue, while brand development translates those decisions into the new brand.

This is also where businesses may need external expertise. The quality of the outcome can depend on choosing a brand development company that understands the existing brand, identifies areas for improvement, and builds a new direction without losing relevant brand equity.

Entering a New Market

Expansion into a new geographic or customer market can require a fresh look at the existing brand strategy. Customer expectations, competitors, cultural factors, and purchasing behavior may differ significantly from those in the original market.

Brand strategy can help determine whether the existing positioning remains appropriate, while brand development can adapt the brand’s identity and communication to support the new market without creating unnecessary inconsistency.

Growing an Established Brand

An established business may already have a strong brand strategy but still require ongoing brand development. As the company adds products, services, employees, markets, and customer touchpoints, the brand needs to evolve without losing its core identity.

At this stage, businesses may also work with branding companies when they need specialized support for identity development, brand communication, or broader brand development initiatives.

Conclusion

Brand strategy and brand development serve different purposes, but they are closely connected. Brand strategy defines the direction by establishing the brand’s purpose, positioning, audience, values, differentiation, and messaging, while brand development turns those strategic decisions into a brand that can be built, communicated, and strengthened.

For businesses, the question is not always whether to choose brand strategy or brand development. A clear strategy provides the foundation, while brand development gives that strategy practical form and helps the brand evolve as business needs and market conditions change.

Understanding the distinction allows businesses to identify what they actually need at each stage of growth. Whether the priority is defining a market position, developing a new identity, rebranding an established company, or expanding into a new market, the right balance between brand strategy and brand development can create a clearer and more consistent brand.

The post Brand Strategy vs Brand Development: What is the Difference? appeared first on TopDevelopers.co.

TRACE was developed by AMD, Intel, Microsoft, OPAQUE, and TII and contributed to the Linux Foundation.

The post Linux Foundation to Govern TRACE, an Open Standard for AI Runtime Attestation appeared first on SecurityWeek.

More than 53 percent of all crypto tokens launched since 2021 are now inactive. CoinDesk reported in January 2026 that of roughly 20.2 million tokens that entered the market in that window, 11.6 million died in 2025 alone.

The flood has not slowed. Over 540,000 tokens launched on Ethereum, Solana, and Base in the first two months of 2026.

Almost every one of those projects ran a token-led go-to-market. Announce, build a Telegram, run an airdrop, list, and hope the price action does the customer acquisition for you. It works often enough to stay popular and fails often enough to be the single most expensive default decision in Web3.

The alternative gets discussed less because it is slower and harder to sell to a board. Ship something people use, charge for it, and treat the token as a distribution mechanism for value the product already creates.

Neither model is correct in the abstract. The question is which one your specific project can survive.

The market context that changes the math

Crypto venture funding reached $13.3 billion in the first half of 2026 according to CoinGecko’s H1 report, spread across only 435 deals. Average deal size rose to $47.4 million, up from $11.7 million in 2024. Capital is concentrating into fewer, larger bets, and the bar for what counts as fundable has moved.

Meanwhile the demand side has quietly matured. Adjusted stablecoin transaction volume hit a record $1.79 trillion in June 2026, up 125 percent from June 2025, with $8.82 trillion in the first six months of the year. Total stablecoin market capitalization stood at $308.0 billion in mid-August 2026. Real usage of crypto rails is growing fast, and it is happening largely without token incentives attached.

Put those two facts together and the picture is uncomfortable for token-first teams. Investors want revenue. Users want utility. The token as an opening move is competing against both.

What each model is actually buying you

Strip the ideology and the two models buy different things at different prices.

Product-led growth buys you retention that survives the incentive being removed. It costs you time, and time is the one input a funded team with an 18-month runway has least of.

Token-led growth buys you speed and liquidity. You can go from announcement to 50,000 wallets in six weeks. It costs you a permanent claim on your future cap table and a user base whose behaviour is priced in tokens rather than in product value.

The trap is that token-led metrics look like product-led metrics for about 90 days. Wallet counts, TVL, Discord members, transaction volume. All of it reads as traction until the emissions stop.

That 90-day window is why so many teams raise a second round on numbers that have already started decaying. The chart is still going up at the moment the deck gets built. It is going up because you are paying for it.

When product-led fits your project

Product-led works when the thing you built solves a problem someone would pay for in dollars.

Test that honestly. If your answer to “would anyone use this without a token reward” is a long paragraph, the answer is no.

Product-led is the right call in four situations:

• You have a revenue model that does not depend on token price. Perpetuals venues, on-chain brokerages, payment rails, and infrastructure with metered usage all qualify. The fee is the business.
• Your users are institutions or businesses. Compliance teams do not approve vendors on the strength of an airdrop. They approve on uptime, audit history, insurance, and who else is already using you.
• You are pre-product-market fit. Launching a token before you know who your user is locks a broken hypothesis into an immutable supply schedule.
• Your competitive advantage is execution rather than incentives. If a fork with 2x emissions can take your users next week, incentives were the moat, and it was never much of one.

Hyperliquid is the cleanest current example. Its 30-day revenue has landed between $50 million and $60 million, against roughly $1 million to $2 million for Uniswap in the same window, despite Uniswap having about three times the daily active users. Q1 2026 gross protocol revenue was $214.95 million, with $190.63 million from perpetual futures fees. Cumulative fees have passed $1.265 billion.

Fewer users. Far more revenue. The product does the work.

Worth saying plainly: this choice is a positioning decision before it is a marketing one. The reason agencies such as Blockchain App Factory sit across both the build side and the launch side is that introducing a token is simultaneously a product question, a supply-schedule question, and a distribution question. Teams that split those across three vendors usually find the contradictions after the schedule is already immutable.

When token-led fits your project

Token-led is not a lesser model. It is the correct model in a narrower set of cases than most founders assume.

It fits when the token is a functional input to the product rather than a reward bolted onto it.

• Your protocol needs bootstrapped liquidity or supply before it can work at all. A lending market with no deposits has no product to be led by. Emissions solve a genuine cold-start problem here.
• Ownership is the product. DAOs, on-chain governance systems, and community-owned networks have a real reason for holders to exist beyond speculation.
• You are building a network where early participants create the asset other participants consume. Storage networks, oracle networks, and decentralized physical infrastructure fit this shape.
• Your distribution advantage is genuinely time-limited. A narrative window opens, and being first with liquidity is worth more than being best in twelve months.

The design work matters more than the launch. On-chain research from Nansen and Flipside Crypto found that more than 80 percent of airdrop recipients sell within the first 90 days, and a study of roughly two million addresses found 64 percent sold at the token generation event itself. Delphi tracked 3.7 million wallets across six major tokens and found sell-through rates of 78 percent to 94 percent within 90 days. Dune Analytics’ work on the Uniswap airdrop found 93 percent of original recipients eventually sold all their UNI, with over 75 percent selling inside the first week.

Those numbers are not an argument against airdrops. They are an argument against undesigned ones. A FORKOFF audit of 21 token-issuing protocols in Q1 2026 found a 6.8x spread between median and top-quartile day-90 retention, with the median cohort holding 6 percent of recipient wallets and the top quartile holding 41 percent.

Same mechanism. Radically different outcomes. The variable is design, not luck.

The sequence most surviving projects actually run

The framing of product-led against token-led is useful for diagnosis and misleading as a strategy. Very few projects that lasted picked one and stayed there.

What they did was sequence.

1. Ship a product that works without a token and get a small number of people using it repeatedly. Not thousands. Hundreds who come back.
2. Instrument everything. You need to know which behaviour predicts retention before you can reward it.
3. Introduce the token against proven behaviour, so emissions amplify a working loop rather than manufacture a fake one.
4. Shift incentives from acquisition to retention within two quarters of TGE, or watch the 90-day sell-through data play out exactly as published.

Step three is where most teams get the timing wrong in both directions. Launch too early and you pay for users who leave. Launch too late and you miss the liquidity window that made the token useful.

Two quarters is the working number for step four. That is roughly how long an emissions-funded cohort takes to reveal whether it was ever a cohort.

Launch too early and you pay for users who leave. Launch too late and you miss the liquidity window that made the token useful.

Metrics that tell you which model you are in

Founders often believe they are running one model while their dashboard shows the other. Four checks settle it.

Look at what happens to weekly active wallets when incentives pause. If usage drops more than half, you are token-led regardless of what the deck says.

Look at where your revenue comes from. Fees paid by users for a service is product-led revenue. Treasury sales and emissions are not revenue, and calling them revenue is how teams talk themselves into a second unnecessary raise.

Look at your cost of acquisition against your payback window. Self-serve and product-led motions in the wider software market run a median CAC around $702 with payback of 7 to 11 months, against a healthy LTV to CAC ratio of 3 to 1. Web3 teams rarely calculate this because token-funded acquisition feels free. It is not free. It is deferred dilution.

Look at cohort behaviour past day 90. This is the single most diagnostic number available to you, and it is the one most teams stop tracking right when it starts to matter.

The regulatory constraint nobody prices in

The choice is narrowing on its own in some jurisdictions.

Under MiCA, new requirements for the form and content of crypto-asset white papers came into force on 23 December 2025, and existing issuers have to update to meet them. All grandfathering periods expire across EU member states by July 2026.

The detail that bears directly on this article is the utility token exemption. A token that grants access to an existing, functioning product or service can be exempt from MiCA’s public offering requirements. A token that grants access to a future promise cannot.

Read that again if you are planning an EU-facing launch. The regulation gives a structural advantage to teams that shipped the product first. Product-led sequencing is now a compliance position as well as a growth position, at least in Europe.

A decision framework you can run in an afternoon

Answer five questions honestly and write the answers down where your co-founder can see them.

1. Does anyone pay you dollars today, or would they if you asked? If yes, go product-led and use the token later as an ownership layer.
2. Does your protocol physically require third-party capital or supply to function? If yes, token-led is defensible from day one.
3. What is your runway? Under 12 months pushes toward token-led out of necessity. Be honest that this is a constraint, not a strategy.
4. Who is your buyer? Institutional buyers make token-led acquisition close to useless.
5. What happens to your numbers if emissions stop tomorrow? If the answer frightens you, you already know which model you are running.

The projects still alive from the 2021 cohort mostly answered question one with a yes. That correlation is the most useful thing in this article.

Frequently asked questions

Can a project run both models at once?

Yes, and the strong ones do. The order matters more than the combination. Product first, token against proven behaviour, incentives shifted toward retention within two quarters of listing.

Is a token-led launch always worse for long-term retention?

No. The FORKOFF data shows a 6.8x gap between median and top-quartile day-90 retention across token-issuing protocols, so design quality explains far more of the outcome than the model choice does.

How long should product-led validation take before a TGE?

There is no fixed number, but you want at least two full quarters of cohort data past day 90 and a repeat-usage pattern you can point to. Launching without that means you are guessing which behaviour to reward.

Does MiCA effectively ban token-led launches in the EU?

No. It raises the disclosure burden and removes the utility token exemption for anything that is still a promise. Token-led launches remain legal with a compliant white paper and the right licensing route.

What is the single clearest signal that a project is token-led?

Pause the incentives for two weeks and watch weekly active wallets. A drop of more than half answers the question with no interpretation required.

Product-led vs token-led go-to-market: which model fits your Web3 project? was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.