Inside a cavernous 1930s-era warehouse on the northern edge of Brooklyn, the ancient and all-but-extinct art of stone carving is having a 21st century rebirth. This is the new headquarters of Monumental Labs, a quirky but audacious startup that is combining the meticulous chisel-and-hammer craft of stone carving with the prowess, speed, and efficiency of robotics and artificial intelligence.
Using an $8 million round of venture capital funding, the 2-year-old company is turning this aging warehouse into a modern stonecutting factory capable of quickly producing highly detailed decorative facades, museum-grade marble sculptures, and towering stone monuments. And if founder Micah Springut gets his way, the company will soon be trying its robotic arms at an even grander project: reinventing the way buildings get built.
[Photo: Monumental Labs]
Walking through the warehouse on a recent day, Springut shows off the 30-foot-high ceilings of the main fabrication floor, where more than a dozen seven-axis robotic carving arms will soon be chipping away at massive blocks of granite, limestone, and marble, turning them into towering sculptures and statues. When the 37,000-square-foot facility comes online in the fall, Monumental Labs will begin fine-tuning its stone carving process to quickly and affordably produce structural stone that can be used to build everything from private homes to multi-level apartment complexes.
[Photo: Monumental Labs]
It will be a big step up from the space Monumental Labs currently leases outside of New York City. That’s where the company produced its first significant projects, including restorations of decorative stone adorning Carnegie Hall and the Frick Museum, which are mostly cut by robots and then hand-finished by trained stone carvers. It’s a process that can cut delivery times for sculptures and decorative facade treatments from months to weeks. But in its current location, Monumental Labs has only been able to deploy two robots, and its monument carving capacity tops out at 12 feet.
[Photo: Monumental Labs]
“We can’t do an entire facade, we can’t do an entire building, we can’t do a monumental arch,” Springut says of the existing workshop. Behind him in the new factory, SUV-sized slabs of marble sit idly by, waiting for the robotic arms to be installed and activated. “All of that kind of stuff, large-scale works, both public and private, could be done here now,” he says.
The new factory space and capacity is made possible by the $8 million funding round, which was led by Seven Seven Six, Reddit cofounder Alexis Ohanian’s venture capital fund. Founding partner Katelin Holloway, who led the deal with Monumental Labs, says the company offers a perfect blend of technology and humanity. “They’re bringing craftsmanship back to architecture,” she says. “This technology has massive potential to transform how we build cities, bringing back that artistic magic we almost lost.”
[Photo: Monumental Labs]
Springut says the new space will help the company keep up with growing demand. It’s currently working on several large-scale sculpture projects for private clients, decorative stone facades, and a set of gargoyles that will be added to a new building at an undisclosed university in the South.
The big goal, though, is getting into structural stone. These are giant, Lego-like blocks of stone that are precisely cut to form thick and strong building bases and walls. With a lower embodied carbon footprint and a much longer lifespan than concrete, structural stone is seen as an environmentally friendly alternative construction method. It’s also one humans have relied on for millennia. “We basically built with stone for all of history until about 110 years ago when industrialization came and changed what became efficient to build with,” says Springut. “The cost of fabricating stone, cutting it, and shaping it into the form you want became far, far more expensive than doing that with concrete.” Robotics and automation, he says, will dramatically lower that down to as little as 25% of the cost of building with concrete.
[Photo: Monumental Labs]
The future of structural stone
Andrew Lane can’t wait. He’s an attorney and prospective developer based in Austin who has become obsessed with the idea of using structural stone to develop new buildingspartly out of frustration with the aesthetics of modern buildings and partly because stone buildings have such longevity. Standing on his balcony in downtown Austin, he pans his phone’s camera from the Renaissance revival-style Texas Capitol Building to the new glass-and-steel office and residential towers a few blocks south. “America could rise, America could fall, that capitol building ain’t going anywhere. That office building right there, that glass, that’s gone in 70 years, max,” he says. “I just don’t understand why we want to build cities like that.” He’s hoping to change course by building townhouses or apartments in Austin using stone carved by Monumental Labs, but is waiting to learn more about exactly how much it will cost.
Springut says that’s still an open question. Monumental Labs has other developer clients who are eager to get started, but everyone first wants to see what the company can produce with its new fabrication space. That’s why one of the first projects Monumental Labs will work on once its new facility is up and running is a 30-foot-tall observation tower built out of structural stone and constructed right in the corner of its main fabrication hall. Springut says that should be enough to get some of these developer clients to commit to building. “We’ve got a number of clients who are just ready for us to be ready,” he says.
There’s still plenty that’s needed before Monumental Labs is actually ready, though. The biggest hurdle is refining the technology behind its stone cutting ambitions, and training its own AI systems to handle the now largely manual process of understanding the cutting paths and the tool heads needed to turn a multiton chunk of limestone into the building blocks of a townhome.
[Photo: Monumental Labs]
“We’ll be using reinforcement learning to effectively come up with the optimal toolpaths to see a 3D model, and based on the curvature and the geometric forms, to choose what are the right tools, or what are the right angles of attack,” Springut says. “And when we do that, that’s what’s going to bring the cost of fabricating stone down by 80% to 90%.”
The company’s proprietary software, he says, will learn from every carving project its robots undertake, getting better over time. This new facility will be part of building that institutional knowledge, using its new fleet of robots to crank out up to 100 life-sized sculptures per year, and possibly a few full-sized buildings.
But that will have to wait until the robots can actually move into the building. First, Springut says, the 1930s-era complex needs some upgrades, including a reinforced foundation capable of handling the weight of the stones to be carved. Before Monumental Labs can revolutionize the world of building, it’ll have to bring its own headquarters into the 21st century.
Earlier today, the price of Bitcoin passed the $120,000 milestone for the first time, marking a dramatic rise for the world’s most popular cryptocurrency over the last three months.
But it’s not just mainstream tokens that are enjoying a rally this week. So-called meme coins, including Shiba Inu, Elon Musk favorite Dogecoin, and President Trump’s own Trump Coin, have also seen their value increase in recent days. Here are some of the latest figures from crypto price tracker CoinMarketCap:
Pepecoin (PEP) Up 24.31 in 7 days
Dogecoin (DOGE): Up 20.73% in 7 days
Shiba Inu (SHIB): Up 17.19% in 7 days
Official Trump (TRUMP) Up 12.52% in 7 days
This is in addition to stock price increases for companies that are crypto adjacent, such as Coinbase, whose shares are up 47.98% over the last month.
Why are crypto prices rising?
Cryptocurrencies can be highly volatile and tend to fluctuate with broader market conditions, so it’s not always easy to tell what is driving any particular rally.
However, one clear reason why crypto tokens may be up this week is that Congress is set to debate and possibly vote on a various key pieces of legislation that are seen as advancing Trump’s crypto-friendly agenda.
As Bloomberg reports, the actions are being dubbed “Crypto Week.”
The legislation includes the Senate’s GENIUS Act, which would create a regulatory framework for a dollar-pegged stablecoin. It also includes the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025aka the Clarity Actwhich aims to create a framework for digital assets more broadly.
Potential crypto-related movement on Capitol Hill comes in addition to growing institutional demand for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, as Fast Company reported last week.
Add it all up and you have a lot of enthusiasm at the moment for Bitcoin and its fellow cryptocurrencies all the way down the chain.
At the same time, it’s important to keep in mind that we’ve been here before. In late 2021, Bitcoin was riding high on what was then a record price, somewhere just north of $64,000. It came crashing down in the wake of numerous crypto scandals and the ensuing “Crypto Winter” of 2022. It took more than two years to recover.
The crypto industry will take a step closer to going mainstream this week as a series of industry-friendly bills progress through Congress, paving the way for digital assets to potentially be further integrated into traditional finance.
The House of Representatives is set to pass a series of crypto-related bills in a week which the Republican majority has dubbed “crypto week.” The most notable is a bill that would establish a regulatory framework for stablecoins and is likely to advance to President Donald Trump’s desk.
That billand another the House is considering that would define when a crypto token is a commodityis a huge win for the crypto industry, which has been pushing for federal legislation for years and poured money into last year’s elections in order to promote pro-crypto candidates.
“Historically, when lawmakers advance industry-backed frameworks, institutional sentiment strengthens. We expect capital that was previously sidelined due to regulatory uncertainty to re-enter,” said Jag Kooner, head of derivatives at crypto exchange Bitfinex.
“Crypto week” also comes as bitcoin has scaled record highs in recent days as investors dive back into risk assets on the back of tariff-related news, as well as expectations that legislation could potentially unlock capital in the crypto space.
The big ticket item the House is set to vote on this week is a bill that would create a set of federal requirements for stablecoins.
Stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency designed to maintain a constant value, usually a 1:1 dollar peg, are commonly used by crypto traders to move funds between tokens. Their use has grown rapidly in recent years, and proponents say they could be used to send payments instantly.
The bill, dubbed the GENIUS Act, received bipartisan support in the Senate, with several Democrats joining most Republicans to back the proposed federal rules. It is expected to pass the House and would then head to Trump, who has said he will sign it into law.
The bill would require tokens to be backed by liquid assetssuch as U.S. dollars and short-term Treasury billsand for issuers to disclose publicly the composition of their reserves on a monthly basis.
Crypto proponents say those rules could legitimize stablecoins, making banks, retailers and consumers more comfortable with using them to transfer funds.
Ahead of the bill’s final passage, many companies across sectors are already considering how they might incorporate stablecoins into their business, said Julia Demidova, head of digital currencies product and strategy at FIS, a financial technology solutions provider.
“I think everyone is realizing, look, this is moving forward and they need to have a stablecoin strategy,” she said. “They need to think how banks themselves will position against some of these novel, new, emerging fintech-issued stablecoins as well.”
Still, many Democrats have argued that the GENIUS Act would not prevent big tech companies from issuing their own private stablecoins, and have called for stronger anti-money laundering protections and prohibitions on foreign stablecoin issuers.
Many Democrats fiercely oppose both the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act, arguing that they have too few consumer protections and would be a giveaway to Trump’s own personal crypto ventures by enabling softer-touch regulation.
Democratic members are expected to offer several amendments to both the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act on the House floor next week, according to a source familiar with the matter, but it is unclear whether any of them will be considered.
The House will also vote next week on a bill that would prohibit the U.S. from issuing a central bank digital currency, which Republicans say violate Americans’ privacy. The bill has not been considered in the Senate and the Federal Reserve has not indicated a desire to develop a central bank digital currency.
MARKET STRUCTURE
The House this week is also expected to pass a bill that aims to develop a regulatory regime for cryptocurrencies and would expand the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s oversight of the digital asset industry and is backed by the industry.
If signed into law, the bill would define when a cryptocurrency is a security or a commodity and clarify the Securities and Exchange Commission’s jurisdiction over the sector, something crypto companies heavily disputed during the Biden administration. That could help crypto companies avoid the oversight of the SEC, which under the Biden administration sued a number of crypto exchanges for flouting its rules.
Crypto companies have argued that most crypto tokens should be classified as commodities, rather than securities, which would enable platforms to more easily offer those tokens to their customers.
That bill, called the CLARITY Act, has yet to be considered in the Senate, where it would need to pass before heading to Trump for final approval.
Trump has sought to overhaul U.S. cryptocurrency policies after courting cash from the industry during his presidential campaign. The sector spent more than $119 million backing pro-crypto congressional candidates in last year’s elections.
Trump’s crypto ventures include a meme coin called $TRUMP, launched in January, and a business called World Liberty Financial, a crypto company owned partly by the president.
The White House has said there are no conflicts of interest and that Trump’s assets are in a trust managed by his children.
Hannah Lang, Reuters
Kraft Heinz is studying a potential spin off of a large chunk of its grocery business, including many Kraft products, into a new entity that could be valued at as much as $20 billion on its own, a source familiar with the matter said on Friday.
However, the structure of the deal could change and there is no guarantee Kraft Heinz would move forward with any such deal, the source said.
News of the potential move is the second effort this week by a storied U.S. company looking to shore up shareholder value as shoppers ditch their pricey products in an uncertain economy. Earlier this week, cereal maker WK Kellogg agreed to a $3.1 billion buyout deal from Italy’s Ferrero.
The Wall Street Journal first reported the development earlier in the day. According to the report, a split, which would leave the company with products such as its namesake Heinz ketchup and Dijon mustard brand Grey Poupon, could be finalized in the coming weeks.
“As announced in May, Kraft Heinz has been evaluating potential strategic transactions to unlock shareholder value,” a company spokesperson said.
Its shares closed up 2.5%. The company currently has a market value of $31.33 billion.
Kraft Heinz was formed in 2015 after Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway and Brazilian private equity firm 3G Capital combined the former Kraft Foods with H.J. Heinz, which they bought in 2013. But it has been a challenging investment for Berkshire.
Inflationary pressures and a shift in focus toward fresher, less processed food have hurt demand for Kraft Heinz’s lunch combos and other products. It lowered annual forecasts and reported a dour quarter in April, hurt by muted consumer spending.
Kraft Heinz also said last month it would stop the launch of new products with artificial colors in the U.S. after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. outlined plans to remove synthetic food dyes from the U.S. food supply to address chronic diseases and conditions.
“KHC spinning off its grocery business echoes the 2023 Kellogg spinoff in which the company spun off its cereal business, which had been in volumetric decline for some time,” said Connor Rattigan, analyst at Consumer Edge.
“As CPGs (consumer packaged goods makers) contend with both changing consumer preferences and a challenging consumer environment, other CPGs may look to M&A and or similar corporate actions to improve their category exposures and improve their top-line trajectory,” Rattigan said.
Anuja Bharat Mistry, Juveria Tabassum, Abigail Summerville, and Neil J. Kanatt, Reuters
KFC is calling Colonel Sanders back into service as the ailing restaurant brand navigates what it calls a Kentucky Fried comeback.
On Monday, the fast-food restaurant chain kicked off a national television ad campaign featuring the return of Colonel Sanders that highlights the brands origin story in an attempt to lure back diners who have gravitated to the sectors largest players, Chick-fil-A and Restaurant Brands Popeyes, and smaller upstarts like Daves Hot Chicken.
While those chains have reported steady sales growth, restaurant operator Yum Brands has reported KFCs U.S. sales have declined for five consecutive quarters.
We kind of lost a bit of ground, says Catherine Tan-Gillespie, president of KFCs U.S. business, during an interview with Fast Company. This is about us getting back in the fight.
KFCs positioning has gotten so wobbly that it was recently ousted from the top three largest chicken chains in the U.S. by sales by Raising Canes.
Smaller chains like Slim Chickens and Daves Hot Chicken have been accelerating their new restaurant openings and have had more success with narrowly focused menus. Growth for Daves Hot Chicken became so appetizing that it recently secured a majority investment from private equity firm Roark Capital at a $1 billion valuation, even though the chain had just over 300 locations.
Chicken is the worlds protein and its the only protein that can be eaten globally, says Fred LeFranc, founder and CEO at restaurant consulting firm Results Thru Strategy. But, its very, very competitive.
Bones of contention
As the legacy incumbent brand, KFC has struggled with a menu that tends to favor bone-in chicken, while much of the growth has been for boneless chicken in the forms of tenders, nuggets, and sandwiches.
The quality of service at KFC isnt as well regarded as it is at rivals like Chick-fil-A, which puts a huge emphasis on friendliness from the staff, and the operating standards for stores has also been low.
They let their stores get old and didnt refurbish them, adds LeFranc.
Tan-Gillespie concedes that legacy brands like KFC sometimes do lose ground if they lose touch with where customers are evolving or where competitors are intensifying.
[Photo: KFC]
A 10-year veteran at KFC, including leadership roles in Canada and the South Pacific markets and serving as a chief marketing officer for the U.S. business, Tan-Gillespie was promoted to the role of president in April to steer a turnaround.
For Yum Brands, it is key to get the chicken restaurant chain back on track to align more with the healthier sales results that have been reported by the operators other two big brands, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut.
Her comeback plan for KFC includes retraining staff and a longer-term investment to renovate stores. KFC intends to use some corporate locations to experiment and evaluate what the restaurant concept of the future will look like.
KFC is also giving a lot more attention to the food it serves, adding original recipe chicken tenders and a chicken-and-waffles combo to the menu. This week, KFC will add fried dill pickle slices, a trendy menu item thats also recently been featured at Popeyes and Shake Shack.
The chain is also promoting a free bucket on us digital offer, available on KFC.com and the companys mobile app, which will give diners a free bucket of fried chicken for orders over $15.
Famous mascot gets a fresh start
As for the return of Colonel Sanders, in the past, KFC relied on a long-running gimmick of hiring big named celebrities to play the character, including Saturday Night Live alums Darrell Hammond and Norm Macdonald, actor Rob Lowe, and country singer Reba McEntire.
Those advertisements were successful in breaking through culturally, but Tan-Gillespie says the latest campaign has a different goal of focusing more on the food and less on a casting gimmick.
We didnt necessarily want a celebrity to detract from that story, says Tan-Gillespie.
The newest ad does feature a celebrity component, with Canadian chef and The Bear actor Matty Matheson interacting with the Colonel in a few brief moments.
KFCs campaign will also run on social media channels including TikTok and Instagram, as well as out-of-home advertising.
It was developed by KFCs team with support from external partners including the creative agency Highdive, whose work in food includes campaigns for Mentos candy, Lays potato chips, and the sandwich restaurant chain Jersey Mikes Subs.
Tan-Gillespie says all of the elements of the campaign reflect a dual approach that she calls sales overnight and brand over time.
What that means is she hopes KFC can emotionally connect with diners with the return of a beloved brand mascot, while also driving more immediate sales with promotions and new menu items.
The return of the Colonel, in many ways, equals the return of KFC, says Tan-Gillespie.
As a leader in technology for nearly 30 years, I have observed waves of innovation disrupt the global business landscape and trigger major shifts in the way we work. Now, as AI takes its place as the next big thing, the global workforce is facing an overwhelming demand for new skills and capabilities.
In my new book, Artificial Intelligence For Business, I highlight the impact of AI on the future of work, specifically the skills gaps and job displacements, as well as future essential skills required in global organizations. Interestingly, there is a cautious instinct at play, specifically for women at work, as they weigh the promise of innovation with the risks of AI application. This hesitation may be deterring women from using AI at work, as worries about embracing AI could undermine their credibility or even invite harsher judgement, instead of highlighting their true potential.
According to recent research conducted by Harvard Business School Associate Professor Rembrand Koning, women are adopting AI tools at a 25% lower rate than men, on average. Synthesizing data from 18 studies that cover over 140,000 individuals worldwide, combined with estimates of the gender share of the hundreds of millions of users of popular generative AI platforms, the research demonstrates the gender gap holds across all regions, sectors, and occupations.
Although the study highlights that closing this gap is crucial for business and economic growth, and development of AI-based technologies that avoid bias, the reasons for the gap existing in the first place needs to be explored further. Lets unpack several ethical, reputational, and systemic hurdles that may lead women to be more reluctant to use AI at work and explore how companies can help bridge this gap.
Ethical concerns
First, ethical concerns of AI adoption tend to weigh heavily on womens minds. Studies indicate that women consistently rate hesitation about AI technology adoption higher than men do, placing greater weight on ethics, transparency, accountability, explainability, and fairness when evaluating AI tools. In one study that examines public perceptions of AI fairness across three societal U.S.-based contexts, personal life, work life, and public life, women consistently perceived AI as less beneficial and more harmful across all contexts. This caution may be evident as women hold themselves, and their teams, to strong ethical standards. These concerns are amplified by the rapid increase in “black box” AI tools adoption across key business decision points, where the inner workings are opaque and hidden behind proprietary algorithms.
As more female ethicists and policy experts enter the global field, they raise high-impact questions about bias, data privacy, and harmful consequences, feeling a special responsibility to get answers before signing off on innovative technology solutions. Women all over the world watched in dismay as leading AI ethicists were penalized for raising valid concerns over ethical development and use of AI.
Famously, Timnit Gebru, co-lead of Googles Ethical AI team, was forced out after pushing back on orders to withdraw her paper on the social risks of large language models. Subsequently, Margaret Mitchell was also fired while standing in solidarity with Gebru and raising similar concerns. This move, among others, has sent a stark message that calling out potential harm in AI could make you a target.
Extra scrutiny
Alongside ethics, there is may be a fear of being judged at work for leaning on AI tools. In my experience, women often face extra scrutiny over their skills, capabilities, and technical prowess. There may be a deep-rooted concern that leveraging AI tools may be perceived as cutting corners or reflect poorly on the users skill level. That reputational risk may be magnified when flaws or issues in the AI outputs are attributed to the users lack of competence or expertise. Layer onto this a host of ongoing systemic challenges inherent in the business environment and AI tools that are implemented. For example, training data can under-represent the experiences of women in the workplace and reinforce the perception that AI products were not built for them. Nondiverse AI teams also pose as a deterrent, creating additional barriers to participate and engage.
The consequence of the gender gap in AI is more than a discomfort. It can result in AI systems that reinforce gender stereotypes and ignore inequities, issues that are augmented when AI tools are applied for decision-making across essential areas such as hiring, performance reviews, and career development. For example, a recruitment tool trained on historical data may limit female candidates from leadership roles, not due to lack of capabilities, but because historically there have been more male leaders. Blind spots like these further deepen the very gap that organizations are trying to close.
To counter this and encourage more women to use AI at work, organizations should start by creating an environment that balances guardrails with exploration. Additionally, they should build psychological safety by encouraging dialogue that gives space for concerns, challenges, and feedback, without fears of being penalized. Open and transparent communication addresses any expected fears and uncertainty that accompany AI use in the workplace. Build fail-safe sandbox environments for exploration, where the goal is to learn through trial and error and develop skills through experiential learning.
Policy changes
Changing policy and guidelines in the organization can prove effective in encouraging more women to use AI at work. Apart from clear guidelines around responsible AI use, policies specifically allowing the use of AI can help close the gap. In a study conducted by the Norwegian School of Economics (NHH), male students were less likely to view using AI as “cheating.” Additionally, when policies forbid the use of AI, male students tended to use it anyway, while women adhered to the policy. When a policy explicitly allowing the use of AI was put in place, over 80% of both men and women used it, suggesting that policies encouraging the use of AI can help trigger more women to use it.
Crucially, organizations should make a proactive effort to bring in more women into the AI conversation at every level. Diverse perspectives can prove effective in catching blind spots, and this approach sends a powerful message that representation matters. When women see their peers proactively shaping AI application in a safe, fair, and impactful way, they will feel more confident in participating as well.
If you need a fresh pack of stamps, be prepared to pay a little bit more. As of yesterday, the price of a Forever stamp is now 78 cents, an increase of roughly 7%.
And it’s not just stamps. The United States Postal Service (USPS) is hiking rates for various domestic shipping services. Here’s everything you need to know:
Which rates are going up?
According to a notice from the USPS, rates for the following services are going up:
Priority Mail service: 6.3% increase
USPS Ground Advantage: 7.1% increase
Parcel Select: 7.6% increase
Which rates are staying the same?
The post office says the following services will not increase:
Priority Mail Express service
Domestic Extra Services
International Ancillary Services
International Products
Why are rates going up?
The increases are going toward technological upgrades, the modernization of services, new staffing, and customer service improvements, according to the USPS notice.
Why am I just hearing about these rate increases?
Probably because there is a lot going on in the world, and it’s easy for this kind of news to get lost in our current flood-the-zone environment. The USPS did publish a notice about the proposed rate increases on May 9. Those increases have been approved and are now reflected on USPS.com.
Why does this sound familiar?
Rate hikes at the post office have become more frequent in recent years. The price of a stamp was last raised about a year ago, when the rate jumped from 68 cents to 73 cents, and that was already the second rate increase of 2024.
The USPS has been working on a 10-year plan to achieve sustainability in the modern era, but it’s still losing money. The agency saw a net loss of $9.5 billion in 2024, compared to $6.5 billion the year before.
Last year, the USPS attributed $1.4 billion of its $79.5 billion operating revenue to rate increases.
In the mid-1990s, Hollywood began trying to envision the internet (sometimes called the information superhighway) and its implications for life and culture. Some of its attempts have aged better than others. Perhaps the most thoughtful is the 1995 film Johnny Mnemonic, the screenplay for which was written by cyberpunk pioneer William Gibson, based on his 1981 short story.
The film tells the story of Johnny (played by Keanu Reeves), whose vocation is couriering large amounts of data uploaded to a digital memory bank installed in his brain. As Johnny is asked to carry more and more data, his memory bank crowds out or burns away his own organic memories. Desperate to earn enough for a brain operation to restore them, he agrees to a final, dangerously large data haul that may cost him his life. Johnny Mnemonic brought Gibsons projections of our online future to millions who might never have encountered them in his books.
A fan of Gibsons books (especially Neuromancer), I remember watching the movie in the mid-2000s and thinking that its effort to visualize and expand the world of the short story felt plasticky and forced. Critics at the time saw something similar, with The New York Times calling it incomprehensible and visually garish, Variety condemning it as a confused mess of sci-fi clichés, and Roger Ebert awarding it just two out of four stars.
But in 2025, Johnny Mnemonic hits me differently. The internet is 30-some years old, and many of Gibsons most prescient ideas have now been more fully realized. If Johnny Mnemonic got some of the details wrong, its larger metaphorical themes of tech addiction, transhumanism, and our drift toward digital spaces have only become more clear. I think Gibson was feeling the zeitgeist of a future moment when we all have to decide how much of our organic lives were willing to give away as our digital lives grow larger.
This story is part of 1995 Week, where well revisit some of the most interesting, unexpected, and confounding developments in tech 30 years ago.
This tension between digital and organic memory arguably began at the turn of the century, when Google established itself as the de facto directory of the information available online. Suddenly, we had access to a vast public store of shared knowledge, data, and content. Studies soon showed that people were forgoing committing information to (organic) memory because they knew it was readily available via Google. Researchers from Columbia, Harvard, and the University of Wisconsin discovered the “Google Effect in a 2011 study, which showed that people are far more likely to remember where data is stored than the actual data itself.
Increasingly, the value of consumer tech products seems to be measured by their ability to addictby how much of the users time and brain space they can claim. Addiction hijacks the brain, reserving more and more time and attention for the object of desire. Every major technology wave in the last three decades has resulted in increased dependency on digital devices and content.
Mobile phones proved remarkably addictive. A number of recent studies peg our daily use at between 3.5 and 4.5 hours per day. Pew Research found in early 2024 that 16- to 24-year-olds (tomorrows adults) often spend more than six hours a day looking at their smartphones. Numerous studies have shown strong correlations between smartphone addiction and mental and physical health problems, including anxiety, depression, poor sleep, and academic struggles. Mobile phone makers have been forced to add features to help people moderate their screen time, but usage continues to rise.
The social media revolution in the 2010s introduced highly addictive digital spaces where almost three-fourths of Americans now spend an average of 2 hours and 10 minutes per day (and thats just a third of their total online time). The addictiveness was and is a feature, not a bug. The thought process that went into building these applications . . . was all about: How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible? Facebook founding president Sean Parker said at an Axios event in 2017. Congress has introduced several bills to restrict addictive design, but none have passed. In the mid-2010s, Facebook discovered that angry, hyperpartisan content was even more potent catnip for keeping people scrolling and posting.
In the 2020s, TikToks AI algorithm set a new standard for addictiveness. It processes thousands of signals indicating a users tastes and beliefs to serve a tailor-fit stream of short videos designed to keep them swiping. The app reached 2.05 billion users worldwide in 2024, with users averaging around an hour per day. A 2024 Pew Research report found that about 58% of U.S. teens use TikTok daily, including 17% who said they use it almost constantly. These tech waves build on each other. Internet usage increased with mobile devices; mobile usage increased with the social web.
Generative AI apps may prove even more addictive and intrusive. OpenAIs ChatGPT is the fastest-growing consumer app in history, amassing 100 million users just two months after launching in late November 2022, and 500 million weekly active users by March 2025. ChatGPT generates everything from computer code and companionship to custom images and video. Internet sites and social platforms no loner rely strictly on human-created contenttheyll soon generate much of it using AI. This might be a personalized companion, a business coach, or even a version of a loved one whos gone, like the ghostly AI character who advises Johnny in the film. This is likely to further increase the share of our time spent in digital spaces.
These technologies capture our brains by capturing our attention, but the tech industry is already developing devices that capture space in our physical bodiesjust like Johnnys memory bank. Neuralinks braincomputer interface (BCI) is implanted in the brain and can translate brain activity to communicate with external tech devices. In the near future, we may choose to use such interfaces to augment our brains with specialized knowledge bases or connect memory prosthetics that allow us to store, retrieve, or even offload memories digitally. Some in AI circles even believe the only way humans can stay relevant in the age of AI is by integrating AI models with their brains.
Humancomputer fusion is a major theme in Gibsons work. In Neuromancer (arguably Gibsons most revered book), the protagonist Case has a bodyguard/sidekick named Molly who has implanted cybernetic eyes that see in the dark, display data to her, and improve her spatial vision during fights. His characters often use dermal sockets in the skull behind the ear to gain new skills (like operating weapons or vehicles). Case and Johnny use these neural interfaces to plug their brains and nervous systems into an alternative, digital world referred to as cyberspace or the matrix. The best-known description of this realm comes from Neuromancer:
A consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate operators, in every nation . . . A graphic representation of data abstracted from the banks of every computer in the human system. Unthinkable complexity. Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the mind, clusters and constellations of data. Like city lights, receding.
In the decades after Johnny Mnemonic, tech companies would invest heavily in developing virtual reality spaces for both consumers and businesses. Companies like Second Life, Microsoft, Magic Leap, Oculus Rift, and more recently Meta and Apple, have taken up the chase. But so far, the tech industrys attempts at creating entertaining, social, and functional digital spaces have failed to go mainstream. After Facebook sunk billions into building the metaverseeven appropriating part of the term as its company namemainstream consumers decided it wasnt the new digital town square and not a place they wanted to spend their time. But that was mainly due to shortcomings in the hardware and software, not a cultural rejection (like with video phones or Google Glass). As extended reality (XR) hardware gets smaller, more powerful, and more comfortable, and digital experiences become more believable, XR could yet go mainstream. It could still become another wave of addictive technology that traps users in digital space.
Gibsons presentation of technology in Johnny Mnemonic betrays an awareness of its addictive qualities. Johnnys last and biggest courier job looks like a drug deal. He meets a crew of Chinese underworld figures in a Beijing hotel room to pick up the data. The upload procedure itself, with its careful assortment of digital paraphernalia, smacks of an allegory to administering a dangerous drug like heroin. Because Johnny lacked enough space in his memory bank for the data, his post-upload reaction looks like an overdose. His body shakes. He grinds his teeth. He perspires heavily. After staggering to the bathroom, hes physically jolted by hallucinatory flashes of the data as it bursts through the limits of his memory bank and into his brain. Staring into the mirror, he discovers his nose is bleeding.
Later, Johnnys love interest, Jane (Dina Meyer) is shown to suffer from a tech-related disease. She has a system of interconnected contact points on her inner forearmlike the track marks of a junkie. She suffers from a condition called NAS (nerve attenuation syndrome), or the black shakes, a neurological disorder caused by overexposure to computers and other electronics. Asked for the cause of NAS, Henry Rollinss Spider character (an anti-corporate activist and underground cybernetic doctor) gestures around at all the electronic equipment in his lab and huffs: All this . . . technological civilization, but we still have all this shit ‘cuz we cant live without it!
Later in the film, an associate named J-Bone (Ice-T) informs Johnny that the data hes carrying is actually the cure for NAS, complete with clinical trials data, and the property of a big pharma multinational. The company, Pharmakom Industries, had been hiding the cure from the public to continue selling drug treatments for the diseases symptoms. That too has a prophetic ring.
In 2025, I already reserve a large part of my cognitive capacity for my online, digital life. Most of us do, and were already shouldering a heavy cognitive load of digital informationand paying for it. Were more stressed, depressed, isolated, and lonely. As digital devices like Neuralink bring the digital world even closer to our brains, the side effects may become more visceral. By giving up part of his brain to someone elses data, Johnny gave up part of his memories. He gave up part of his identitypart of himself. At times, as data burst from the limits of his memory bank, pieces of it flashed in his mind like broken images and mingled with flashes of his own, real memories.
One day, an AI implant may introduce a foreign intelligence into our brains that mixes with our organic, earned knowledge and experience. Did Johnny ever wonder where the digital part of him ended and his real self began? Will we?
Robinhood cofounder and CEO Vlad Tenev channeled Hollywood glamour last month in Cannes at an extravagantly produced event unveiling of the trading platforms newest products, including a tokenized shares offering designed to give investors exposure to private companies like SpaceX and OpenAI, as well as public companies like Microsoft and Nvidia. For crypto enthusiasts, it was a watershed moment: A major trading platform was finally breaking down the barriers between traditional equities and blockchain technologies.
The time is now for crypto to move beyond Bitcoin and memecoins and introduce fundamental utility, Tenev told Bloomberg Television. We think, in the future, crypto and traditional financial services will fully merge, and crypto will become the infrastructure layer behind all kinds of financial services.
But Tenevs moment of triumph was short-lived. First, OpenAI cautioned Robinhood customers to be careful, noting on X that tokenized shares are not OpenAI equity. Then, this week, the Securities and Exchange Commissions cryptocurrency task force leader released a statement saying that tokenized securities are still securities. While the statement did not represent an official shift in Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) policy, it did serve as a signal that U.S. regulators are monitoring tokenization with a critical eye. (For now, Robinhoods tokenized shares are only available in Europe.)
Despite the controversy, at least half a dozen companies are racing to develop tokenized versions of traditional equities. Heres what you need to know:
What are tokenized shares?
Tokenized shares are digital versions of stocks or other securities that mimic the valuation of the real-world version. They give buyers exposure to the traditional equities without giving them governance rights.
How do they work?
Tokenized shares can work one of two ways: In the first case, the trading platform acquires shares in a company, and then issues tokens for those shares. There is a one-to-one relationship between the underlying shares held by the trading platform and the tokens that the platform issues.
In the second case, the trading platform issues tokens without acquiring any underlying shares, while promising to tie the value of its token to the real-world securitys value. The onus here is on the trading platform to be able to cover any gains through its own investment and hedging strategies.
Robinhood has said it will own the shares backing its tokens and will provide token holders with benefits including dividends.
Which trading platforms are offering tokenized shares?
Many of the leading crypto trading platforms, including Coinbase and Kraken, are in the process of developing tokenized shares. Coinbase is still in talks with the SEC, while Kraken launched its xStocks product, which includes over 50 U.S. equities, in select non-U.S. markets in May. Kraken backs its xStocks one-to-one with traditional equities.
Republic, an investment platform known for its private market and crowdfunding solutions, is calling its tokenized shares mirror tokens and is currently operating a waitlist for unicorns including SpaceX, Anthropic, and Ramp. Its capping investor participation at $5,000, and does not plan to acquire shares.
Youre not buying a SPV [special purpose vehicle] interest in SpaceX, says Mario Lattuga, Republics head of legal. What you’re doing is, you want to participate in that prospective upside. And it’s as much of a bet on Republic as it is on that underlying company.
Jarsy, founded by former Facebook and Uber executive Han Qin, is one of several younger startups focused on tokenized shares. Jarsy closed its $5 million seed round last month.
What is the argument in favor of tokenization?
Proponents of tokenization view it as a way to increase access to private markets and modernize public markets.
In the U.S., only accredited investors are allowed to invest in private companiesand even for accredited investors, its extraordinarily difficult to buy shares of a unicorn like SpaceX. Younger generations of investors, in particular, see the opportunity to get in early on future unicorns as important to their financial success.
In parallel, proponents of public company tokenization view the model as a way to increase markets speed, efficiency, accessibility, and cost. Robinhood is aiming to demonstrate those benefits by making its tokenized shares tradable 24 hours a day, five days a week. Over time, Robinhood aims to eliminate even blockchain middlemen and run token trading on its own infrastructure.
What are the risks associated with tokenization?
For companies, token markets have the potential to undermine control. A private company raising a fundraising round, for example, might struggle to convince investors of its target strike price if the companys tokens are trading at a lower price.
For retail investors, there are a multitude of risks, which can vary depending on the specific terms being offered by the trading platform. Some platforms are imposing liquidity constraints, for example. Plus, there has been no official rulemaking around the products, making it unclear what recourse will be available to investors in the event of a trading platforms collapse or other potential problems.
What are regulators saying about tokenized shares?
The S.E.C.s crypto task force held a hearing on tokenization in May. Hester Pierce, the task forces leader and an S.E.C. commissioner, indicated in her recent statements that tokenized shares should be treated as securities, or tradable financial instruments, which would make them subject to government oversight. She also noted that the S.E.C. was also willing to collaborate with trading platforms. We stand ready to work with market participants to craft appropriate exemptions and modernize rules, she said. For now, though, the products are in the same kind of regulatory limbo that has plagued some aspects of crypto for years.
Is this the first time that platforms have tried to make a go of it with tokenized equities?
No. In 2021, crypto exchange Binance launched tokenized U.S. stocks, including for Apple and Tesla. But Binance scrubbed the effort just months later, after regulators balked.
Why has OpenAI been the most vocal in its resistance to tokenization?
OpenAIs famously complex corporate structure may play a role in its cautionary tone. Startup Jarsy, for example, does not plan to list OpenAI tokens. Jarsy could have tried to acquire OpenAI preferred shares through an existing investor, but decided to pass because of the risks associated with tying tokens t a company with a murky governance structure. OpenAI is a nonprofit company; the shares theyre offering are not exactly shares, says Qin.
Why are so many companies launching tokenized shares now?
The Trump administration is seen as crypto-friendly. If Trumps SEC allows tokenized shares to move forward, it could be difficult for a future administration to walk the decision back.
Hello and welcome to Modern CEO! Im Stephanie Mehta, CEO and chief content officer of Mansueto Ventures. Each week this newsletter explores inclusive approaches to leadership drawn from conversations with executives and entrepreneurs, and from the pages of Inc. and Fast Company. If you received this newsletter from a friend, you can sign up to get it yourself every Monday morning.
Prominent CEOs and high-net-worth individuals have long had security details, but in recent months executive security feels like it has become a more conspicuous part of the corporate landscape. It is no longer unusual to see a CEOs protection officer standing nearby during lunch in a restaurant. Ive had a growing number of companies request a sweep of our office before a CEO visits Fast Company or Inc., and Ive seen leaders arrive at meetings in bulletproof vehicles, even after traveling just a few blocks.
This rise in CEO security isnt just anecdotal: More than a third (34.4%) of S&P 500 companies offered executive security in 2024, according to a fresh analysis of 2025 proxy statements by intelligence firm Equilar, up from 28.2% in 2023. Median security spending last year increased to $105,749, up 6% from a year earlier, with some companies, such as Intel, boosting security spending more than 8,000%, to $250,000 from just $3,000 in 2023.
And security spending is likely to climb in 2025 following the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024. Experts say heightened security resources correlate to a rise in credible threats against executives, fomented by political rhetoric, social media, and antibusiness sentiment.
Bodyguards for the top boss
Even for public company CEOs, the level and visibility of their security operations vary wildly based on their fame and circumstances. Meta provides CEO Mark Zuckerberg with a $14 million annual pretax allowance to protect him and his family, up from $10 million in 2018. We believe that Mr. Zuckerberg’s role puts him in a unique position: He is synonymous with Meta and, as a result, negative sentiment regarding our company is directly associated with, and often transferred to, Mr. Zuckerberg, the company says in its 2025 proxy statement. In contrast, Berkshire Hathaway last year spent $305,111 on in-home and personal security services for its equally high-profile but relatively unprovocative CEO, Warren Buffett.
Most CEOs are initially reluctant to embrace protection. Usually, CEOs think everythings fine, says Paul Donahue, president, global security services at Constellis, which provides security services and support. When they do concede to security, chief executives can be very selective about the professionals who guard them. We tell all of our executive protection folks, CEOs operate at a very high speed, theyre highly demanding, and theyre as particular in picking security as they are in picking a plane theyre buying, so weve had a lot of turnover, he says.
Constellis recruits ex-military, ex-law enforcement, and career security professionals to work in its executive protection unit. Donahue says those careers instill people with the skills, including discipline and an understanding of chain of command, needed to succeed in the field.
Protecting a CEO can be a balancing act: Security professionals need to be able to say no to clients, especially when a seemingly simple request, like running out to pick up a pint of ice cream, might require Constellis to put together a patrol team and mobilize several cars. But if they insist, we’ll go to Häagen-Dazs at 11 p.m., Donanue says. It’s as personal a service as I think there is.
Should companies invest in CEO security? While the odds of an incident are fairly low, Donahue argues (self-servingly) that it is money well spent. He notes that the Thompson killing unleashed a wave of negative sentiment about United Healthcare and the health insurance industry, damaging the companys reputation and hurting employee morale. Furthermore, he says, if companies spend millions of dollars guarding intellectual property, products, and brands, they should feel comfortable earmarking a couple hundred thousand dollars for CEO protection. If you truly believe your most important asset is your people, which we hear over and over, you probably should spend a little more on protecting that important asset, he says.
How do you protect yourself?
CEOs, how are you thinking about personal security? How do you protect yourself and your leadership teams? Send your experiences to me at stephaniemehta@mansueto.com, and well highlight examples in a future newsletter.
Read more: CEO comp
Founders are among the most fairly paid CEOs
Heres how much entrepreneurs paid themselves in 2024
CTOs outearn founders at tech startups
