 |
|
|
|||||
Last March, President Donald Trump signed an executive order declaring that the government would launch a strategic reserve of Bitcoin. For the crypto industry, the move was a major win, the next step in its quest to normalize digital assets. Now, nearly a year later, the amount of Bitcoin held by the U.S. government does seem to be growing, but the federal government also seems somewhat reluctant to talk about about if, and how, the stockpile will actually be set up. As of January, the U.S. government appears to have amassed about $29 billion worth of Bitcoin, many from seizures that follow criminal investigations, according to a new analysis by Chainalysis, a blockchain data firm. Thats up nearly 50% from May of last year, when the group last conducted a study of government-linked crypto wallets. Those [BTC] numbers continue to go up over time, Eric Jardine, Chainalysiss head of research, told Fast Company. That stockpile is smaller than some private firms also amassing crypto, he explained, but the current total for the U.S. government is quite sizableas big, if not bigger, than every other government. The growing reserves align with Trumps executive order, which stated there was a strategic advantage to building up the American governments cryptocurrency troves because, like gold, theres a fixed supply. The White House suggests that building up a supply of Bitcoin, like any “resource,” is good for the national interest, though there are forceful criticisms of that notion. Still, for all the initial fanfare, the Treasury Department has since been relatively quiet about its progress on moving forward with the reserve. While the government does seem to have begun to holdrather than sell offseized Bitcoin, federal agencies mostly ignored Fast Companys requests for comment on how theyre actually enacting the terms of the order. One source in Treasury Department circles said that theres been radio silence when it comes to the stockpile. In fact, it seems like the reserve may be facing some legal hurdles. As Fast Company reported the story, Patrick Witt, a White House staffer working on crypto issues, indicated on a crypto-friendly podcast that legal conversations about setting up the reserve were still ongoing. That one isit’s interesting, he said. It seems straightforward, but then you get into some obscure legal provisions, and why this agency can’t do it, but actually, this agency could. We’re continuing to push on that. It is certainly still on the priority list right now. Making the executive order a reality Executive Order 14233 instructed the Treasury Department to set up offices to manage both a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a United States Digital Asset Stockpile, an office to handle blockchain-based assets other than Bitcoin. According to the order, the Treasury Department was supposed to manage both stockpiles and begin looking for ways the government could potentially acquire more Bitcoin without increasing costs for taxpayers. The order also restricted government agencies from selling or getting rid of digital assets, except in a limited set of circumstances. In June, Tyler Williams, the Treasury Department’s counselor for digital assets, briefly mentioned the stockpileaccording to minute meetings from the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which is housed within the departmentbut provided few details. A policy report from June also discussed the reserve and noted that the Treasury Department had sent considerations to the White House about the reserve and would move forward with the next steps, including looking at ways to actually hold crypto in custody. Chainalysis looked at crypto addresses that seem to be associated with the government, calculating they held about $29 billion worth of crypto. The company noted there might be some consolidation of Bitcoin accounts, but didnt say which agencies might be currently holding them. Its not clear if further progress has been made on developing a Treasury-operated stockpile. Earlier this month, Bitcoin Magazine suggested that the U.S. Marshals Service may have even sold government-seized crypto, prompting an outraged post on X from Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), one of the most pro-Bitcoin legislators in Congress. Witt, from the presidents council of advisers for digital assets, later said on X that hed confirmed that the wallet in play had not been liquidated, as per the executive order. A U.S. Marshals spokesperson told Fast Company: The reporting about the sale of that wallet was in error. They did not fact-check. The Bitcoin is still being held, as per direction of the executive order.” The reserve no one will talk about Still, the government seems otherwise reluctant to discuss the reserve. When asked about the state of the stockpile at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting, held a week ago in Davos, Switzerland, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent only told reporters: The policy of this government is to add seized Bitcoin to our digital asset reserve after the damages are done. … Our view was first you have to stop sellingwhich we have doneand then we can add the assets and asset forfeitures. The Treasury Department has not responded to multiple requests for comment from Fast Company regarding more details on the stockpiles operations, and its not clear if the department has actually set up any offices, as the order stipulates. Witt, meanwhile, has recently hinted that there are still ongoing discussions on how to, legally, make the reserve actually work. During a podcast interview, he mentioned good engagement with a team led by Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff for policy. I think with some of the latest kind of developments and things that we’ve learned, and engagement from general counsels and different agencies, he said, [they have] some good guidance on where we can move out on this executive order of the president, and can do so in a legally sound way. So more to come on that. Notably, the executive order also established responsibilities for various federal agencies, which are supposed to communicate with the Treasury Department about Bitcoin and other digital assets they might have on hand. Deadlines for those updates have long passed. Stil, only one of more than a dozen federal agencies contacted by Fast Company commented on what they specifically had done to meet the executive orders requirements. That was the Secret Service, which, in addition to protecting the president and foreign diplomats, has a cybercrime team. The U.S. Secret Service is compliant with the reporting standards set forth in the executive order, said Alexandria Worley, a USSS spokesperson. A majority of the U.S. Secret Services forfeited digital assets belong to victims of criminal activity, and one of the agencys primary investigative goals is to recover and return those assets to their rightful owners. Worley said that the amount of crypto retained by the government is nominal. Coinbase, which currently has a contract to hold crypto for the U.S. Marshals Service, did not respond to a request for comment about whether its also holding a U.S. stockpile. Neither did Kraken or Gemini, which also offer services for maintaining crypto. Fast Company was not able to identify any solicitations from the Treasury Department that mention the strategic Bitcoin stockpile, and Sen. Lummiss office also ignored multiple requests for comment. Pro-crypto groups are still rooting for the stockpile, though, and the validation it offers. Hailey Miller, an executive director for the Digital Chambers policy group, said that the reserve can become not just a balance sheet item, but a pillar of U.S. economic and technological competitiveness.” Ji Hun Kim, CEO of the Crypto Council for Innovation, similarly told Fast Company that the digital asset reserve showcases policymakers understanding that digital assets have a crucial place.
Category:
E-Commerce
We’re witnessing an unprecedented explosion in creative capability. Voice interfaces are removing barriers for billions who found keyboards cumbersome. AI image generators can mock up virtually any creative direction instantly. The technical constraints that once defined creative work are dissolving. Yet this abundance creates a new challenge: when everything becomes possible, the possibilities overwhelm us. What then becomes most valuable is knowing whats worth making. I predict that in 2026, the question “should we build this?” will matter more than “can we build this?” The capability surplus The AI conversation is all about capabilities. What you can make. How fast you can make it. What’s now possible. But there’s a gap emerging between what we can create and what we should create. McKinsey’s November 2025 State of AI report reveals a telling paradox: 88% of organizations now use AI in at least one business function, yet only 39% report enterprise-level financial impact. Theyre capturing value in isolated use cases but struggling to translate that into long-term growth or improved profit margins. The gap is knowing where to apply it and how to create a framework so that it can actually make an impact. The skills everyone can hone in 2026 This shift creates genuine opportunity for every creator, professional, and anyone who cares about honing their craft while scaling their impact. When creative execution becomes universally available, three things become differentiators: Starting with better questions: “How can we have the greatest impact? Which decisions should stay human? Where does automation create fragility?” These aren’t constraints. They’re the frameworks that prevent cognitive overload when everything is technically possible. Developing taste through iteration: Just as calculators didn’t eliminate the need for mathematical understanding, AI doesn’t eliminate the need for creative foundations. But here’s what changes: the ability to rapidly iterate with AI actually accelerates taste development. You get more attempts, tighter feedback cycles, and faster learning. You build judgment by making more decisions, not fewer. Knowing when to publish: When AI can generate countless variations instantly, pressing the button to share something with someone becomes the defining creative act. What you send, when you send it, who receives it. These decisions shape identity and message in ways that generation alone cannot. What tools and platforms can enable now If knowing what to make is the new skill, the tools that help us develop that skill won’t be just an obsequious yes-man. The most valuable AI tools won’t be those that simply execute your vision, but those that act as creative partners. I predict that tools will emerge that provide the right amount of friction to push your creative ideas. The role of creative platforms will shift from providing capability to providing capability plus judgment scaffolding built into the product. This means: Tools that challenge ideas rather than just execute them Interfaces that know when to stay silent rather than interrupt constantly (fewer notifications, fewer decisions, fewer interruptions) Features that help users understand why a choice works, not just that it does The new creative spectrum We’re moving toward multiple valid modes of creation: human-only, AI-only, AI + human (sometimes openly disclosed, sometimes invisible). Rather than one approach dominating, this spectrum will generate different types of work and different conversations about craft. We will see “not made with AI” declarations coexist with behind-the-scenes AI integration as standard practice. This reflects an expansion of possibilities. More people will have access to creative tools than ever before. The question is whether they’ll develop the judgment to use them well. What success looks like now The optimistic case for 2026 isn’t that AI makes creativity effortless. It’s that AI makes creativity accessible, then rewards those who develop judgment within that access. Billions of people now have access to professional-grade creative tools. Will we drown in celebrity deepfakes, or will we see an emerging class of contemporary artists? This depends on how well we build “judgment frameworks” into the AI tools we use and our ways of working. We need to use AI tools with discernment, but we also need to hold each other accountable to think deeply and think before we publish. The most in-demand professionals will be those who can reframe messy questions, challenge false assumptions, and decide what not to optimize. Why? Because when everyone has access to the same generation tools, the baseline quality of output rises, but so does the volume of mediocre work that looks professional but lacks strategic intent. We’re already seeing the consequences of capability without discernment: marketing campaigns that are technically polished but strategically incoherent, designs that follow trends without serving user needs, code that runs but creates technical debt. Coca-Cola’s 2024 AI-generated holiday campaign was technically polished but felt “soulless” to audiences who expected the brand’s traditional warmth, while McDonald’s’ Netherlands’ AI holiday ad was pulld after just three days following intense backlash. And in code, GitClear’s 2024 analysis of 211 million lines found that copy-pasted code blocks increased eightfold, generating code that runs but creates the kind of technical debt that compounds into future headaches. The winners in this new landscapeboth creators and platformswill be those who can cut through the noise. Who develop the human skill to know which problems are worth solving. Who understand that unlimited possibility doesn’t mean every possibility is valuable. The competitive advantage shifts from I can make this to I know this is worth making.
Category:
E-Commerce
Businesses are acting fast to adopt agentic AIartificial intelligence systems that work without human guidancebut have been much slower to put governance in place to oversee them, a new survey shows. That mismatch is a major source of risk in AI adoption. In my view, its also a business opportunity. Im a professor of management information systems at Drexel Universitys LeBow College of Business, which recently surveyed more than 500 data professionals through its Center for Applied AI and Business Analytics. We found that 41% of organizations are using agentic AI in their daily operations. These arent just pilot projects or one-off tests. Theyre part of regular workflows. At the same time, governance is lagging. Only 27% of organizations say their governance frameworks are mature enough to monitor and manage these systems effectively. In this context, governance is not about regulation or unnecessary rules. It means having policies and practices that let people clearly influence how autonomous systems work, including who is responsible for decisions, how behavior is checked, and when humans should get involved. This mismatch can become a problem when autonomous systems act in real situations before anyone can intervene. For example, during a recent power outage in San Francisco, autonomous robotaxis got stuck at intersections, blocking emergency vehicles and confusing other drivers. The situation showed that even when autonomous systems behave as designed, unexpected conditions can lead to undesirable outcomes. This raises a big question: When something goes wrong with AI, who is responsibleand who can intervene? Why governance matters When AI systems act on their own, responsibility no longer lies where organizations expect it. Decisions still happen, but ownership is harder to trace. For instance, in financial services, fraud detection systems increasingly act in real time to block suspicious activity before a human ever reviews the case. Customers often only find out when their card is declined. So, what if your card is mistakenly declined by an AI system? In that situation, the problem isnt with the technology itselfits working as it was designedbut with accountability. Research on human-AI governance shows that problems happen when organizations dont clearly define how people and autonomous systems should work together. This lack of clarity makes it hard to know who is responsible and when they should step in. Without governance designed for autonomy, small issues can quietly snowball. Oversight becomes sporadic and trust weakens, not because systems fail outright, but because people struggle to explain or stand behind what the systems do. When humans enter the loop too late In many organizations, humans are technically in the loop, but only after autonomous systems have already acted. People tend to get involved once a problem becomes visiblewhen a price looks wrong, a transaction is flagged, or a customer complains. By that point, the system has already been decided, and human review becomes corrective rather than supervisory. Late intervention can limit the fallout from individual decisions, but it rarely clarifies who is accountable. Outcomes may be corrected, yet responsibility remains unclear. Recent guidance shows that when authority is unclear, human oversight becomes informal and inconsistent. The problem is not human involvement, but timing. Without governance designed upfront, people act as a safety valve rather than as accountable decision-makers. How governance determines who moves ahead Agentic AI often brings fast, early results, especially when tasks are first automated. Our survey found that many companies see these early benefits. But as autonomous systems grow, organizations often add manual checks and approval steps to manage risk. Over time, what was once simple slowly becomes more complicated. Decision-making slows down, work-arounds increase, and the benefits of automation fade. This happens not because the technology stops working, but because people never fully trust autonomous systems. This slowdown doesnt have to happen. Our survey shows a clear difference: Many organizations see early gains from autonomous AI, but those with stronger governance are much more likely to turn those gains into long-term results, such as greater efficiency and revenue growth. The key difference isnt ambition or technical skills, but being prepared. Good governance does not limit autonomy. It makes it workable by clarifying who owns decisions, how systems function is monitored, and when people should intervene. International guidance from the OECDthe Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developmentemphasizes this point: Accountability and human oversight need to be designed into AI systems from the start, not added later. Rather than slowing innovation, governance creates the confidence organizations need to extend autonomy instead of quietly pulling it back. The next advantage is smarter governance The next competitive advantage in AI will not come from faster adoption, but from smarter governance. As autonomous systems take on more responsibility, success will belong to organizations that clearly define ownership, oversight, and intervention from the start. In the era of agentic AI, confidence will accrue to the organizations that govern best, not simply those that adopt first. Murugan Anandarajan is a professor of decision sciences and management information systems at Drexel University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||