The Cryptonomist

Uma plataforma de memecoins que permite que qualquer pessoa lance um token em menos de dois minutos acaba de reacender um dos argumentos mais antigos do mundo cripto. Em uma entrevista ao Crypto Insider publicada em 8 de agosto de 2026, o cofundador da Pump fun, Noah Tweedale, disse que ele é “um enorme pessimista em relação à descentralização”, argumentando que quem vence no longo prazo é definido pela experiência do usuário, e não pela arquitetura da blockchain. Seus comentários trouxeram novamente o debate sobre descentralização das blockchains para o foco, em um momento em que os próprios números da Pump.fun dão ao argumento dele um peso incomum.

Super League Enterprise is about to become something very different from the gaming media company Wall Street has known for years. In a deal that fuses a Nasdaq-listed advertising business with one of the world’s largest corporate Bitcoin holders, Super League will be renamed Superplanet, Inc. and turned into a Super League Bitcoin treasury platform majority-owned by Tokyo-listed Metaplaner, Inc. The agreement, announced by both companies, marks one of the more unusual cross-border Bitcoin consolidation plays to hit U.S. capital markets this year.
Key takeaways
Super League Enterprise will be renamed Superplanet, Inc. once the transaction closes, becoming a Nasdaq-listed U.S. Bitcoin treasury platform.
Metaplanet will contribute 2,100 Bitcoin (worth roughly $132.1 million) plus $2.5 million in cash in exchange for 44,859,400 shares at $3.00 each, along with preferred stock and warrants.
Metaplanet will end up owning approximately 95.7% of Superplanet’s common stock, with those shares locked up for five years.
Metaplanet itself holds 43,000 BTC, making it the third-largest corporate Bitcoin holder among public companies worldwide.
The deal is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2026, pending shareholder and regulatory approval in the U.S. and Japan.
Super League becomes Superplanet: inside the Bitcoin treasury deal with Metaplanet
The core of the announcement is straightforward, even if the mechanics are elaborate: Super League Enterprise, Inc. (Nasdaq: SLE) and Metaplanet, Inc. (TSE: 3350) have signed a definitive agreement that turns Super League into a Bitcoin-backed holding company once the transaction closes. Once that happens, the company will drop its old name and ticker, becoming Superplanet, Inc. and trading under the symbol “SUPA.”
Crucially, this isn’t a reverse takeover and it isn’t a SPAC deal. It’s structured as a strategic private placement of newly issued securities into an existing, operating Nasdaq company. Super League’s gaming media and advertising business — the one that connects brands with a global gaming audience — stays intact as a distinct operating segment under the new structure.
How the transaction is structured
Metaplanet, working through its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary Metaplanet Holdings, Inc., is putting in 2,100 Bitcoin valued at approximately $132.1 million, plus $2.5 million in cash. In return, it receives 44,859,400 shares of Super League common stock priced at $3.00 per share, along with shares of preferred stock and warrants. The share count was fixed using Bitcoin’s closing price on the Coinbase Exchange at 4:00 p.m. New York time on August 14, 2026, and it will not move even if Bitcoin’s price shifts before closing.
All told, the initial investment adds up to roughly $134.6 million. It’s a sizable bet, but a relatively modest slice of Metaplanet’s overall balance sheet — the 2,100 BTC contribution represents about 4.9% of the company’s total Bitcoin holdings.
Metaplanet’s $132.1 million Bitcoin and cash contribution
Beyond the initial share sale, Metaplanet is also picking up 100 shares of convertible perpetual preferred stock, which comes with voting rights — including the power to designate a majority of Superplanet’s board. It will also receive ten-year warrants to purchase up to 381,000,000 shares of common stock across four tranches, with exercise prices climbing from $3.00 to $33.50 per share. Separately, an investor called Evo Fund will get warrants for up to 10,000,000 shares in two tranches.
On top of that, Metaplanet holds a subscription right for 24 months after closing to buy up to 2,100,000 shares of non-convertible junior liquidity preferred stock at $100.00 per share — a mechanism that could bring in another $210.0 million if fully exercised.
A combined Bitcoin position spanning Nasdaq and Tokyo
Why does any of this matter beyond Super League’s cap table? Because it effectively knits together two publicly traded Bitcoin treasuries operating in different currencies and under different regulators. Metaplanet already holds 43,000 BTC, ranking it as the world’s third-largest corporate Bitcoin holder among publicly traded companies. Once the deal closes, that same Bitcoin discipline extends into a second, Nasdaq-listed vehicle.
Metaplanet and Superplanet will operate as a consolidated group, each raising capital in its home market — Japan for Metaplanet, the U.S. for Superplanet — while compounding what the companies describe as a single group-level Bitcoin position. Superplanet’s Bitcoin will not leave the consolidated group, and its holdings will be folded into Metaplanet’s financial statements. In practical terms, that means U.S. investors get exposure to a Bitcoin balance sheet backed by an established Japanese sponsor’s capital markets track record, while Metaplanet gains a foothold in what it considers the deepest capital market in the world.
This is where the strategic logic sharpens. Any capital Superplanet raises without issuing more common shares — through instruments like perpetual preferred stock — is expected to increase the Bitcoin-per-share figure for Superplanet’s common stock, and by extension, the Bitcoin attributable to each Metaplanet share too. It’s a structure designed to let both companies grow their Bitcoin exposure per share without diluting existing holders the way a straight equity raise would.
Five-year lock-up and the capital plan behind Superplanet
All shares issued to Metaplanet at closing — plus any issued later through warrant exercises or preferred stock conversions — carry a five-year lock-up. That’s a meaningful signal: Metaplanet isn’t treating this as a short-term trade. The company is positioning itself as a long-term, strategic holder of its Superplanet stake, not a financial sponsor looking for a quick exit.
The plan for what comes next centers on Superplanet’s Bitcoin functioning as collateral for future issuances of perpetual preferred stock — permanent equity capital with no maturity date, which can be structured to limit long-term dilution for common stockholders. Both companies say they will size any such issuance conservatively against asset coverage over time, with operating income and other non-dilutive cash flow helping to service dividends. Notably, Metaplanet’s entire economic stake in Superplanet — common stock, preferred stock, and warrants alike — will rank junior to any future preferred stock the company issues.
Metaplanet is also weighing whether an existing subsidiary could help distribute any future Superplanet-issued securities in Japan, subject to regulatory clearance in both countries. No decision on issuing new securities has been made yet. Once the deal closes, Superplanet plans to start publishing its own Bitcoin-per-share metrics, mirroring the disclosure practice Metaplanet already follows, while Metaplanet reports figures on a consolidated basis.
Timeline, leadership and what happens next
The transaction is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2026, pending customary closing conditions — including approval from Super League’s stockholders, required Nasdaq filings, and regulatory clearance in both the U.S. and Japan. Super League will file a proxy statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission detailing the deal for shareholders ahead of a vote.
Leadership continuity plays a role here too. Matthew Edelman, currently Super League’s CEO, will become CEO of Superplanet. Metaplanet will designate the new board chairman, and Superplanet’s board will expand to nine directors — five appointed by Metaplanet, including CEO Simon Gerovich, Frederick Towfigh, and John H. Whitehouse III, plus four continuing Super League directors including Edelman himself.
Gerovich framed the move as an extension of what Metaplanet has already built in Japan. “We’ve built one of the world’s largest Bitcoin treasuries from Japan. Superplanet is how we build in America, the deepest capital market in the world,” he said. “We are putting our own Bitcoin in, locking up our shares, and backing Super League with our balance sheet and expertise. It is one consolidated Bitcoin position, compounding through two listed platforms in Japan and in the U.S.”
Edelman, for his part, tied the deal to the balance-sheet cleanup Super League has spent the past year working through. “Over the past year, we did the hard work of eliminating debt, reducing costs, and simplifying our capital structure. That discipline created the foundation for this type of transformative opportunity,” he said. “We believe Bitcoin is the strongest monetary asset available for a corporate balance sheet in today’s fiscal environment… This is more than a transaction. It’s the beginning of a new model for how a public company can build long-term shareholder value around Bitcoin.”
For now, Super League’s advertising business — which reaches a global gaming population Metaplanet’s own materials put at 3.3 billion players — keeps running as a separate operating unit. Whether the market treats Superplanet as a genuine Nasdaq Bitcoin platform or simply a smaller echo of Metaplanet’s Tokyo strategy will likely depend on how quickly the company can demonstrate its own Bitcoin-per-share growth once trading under the new ticker begins.
FAQ
What is the main change for Super League after the transaction?
Super League will be renamed Superplanet, Inc. and become a Nasdaq-listed U.S. Bitcoin treasury platform majority-owned by Metaplanet.
How much Bitcoin and cash is Metaplanet contributing to the transaction?
Metaplanet is contributing 2,100 Bitcoin worth approximately $132.1 million and $2.5 million in cash.
What ownership stake will Metaplanet have in Superplanet after closing?
Metaplanet will hold approximately 95.7% of Superplanet’s issued and outstanding common stock.
What are the commitments regarding share lock-up after the transaction?
All shares issued to Metaplanet will be subject to a five-year lock-up, indicating a long-term strategic holding.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

A Visa está em busca de um novo parceiro de liquidação, e a pesquisa diz muito sobre a rapidez com que o negócio de stablecoins se transformou em um campo de batalha para as maiores redes de pagamento do mundo. A empresa procura um parceiro de liquidação e balcão (over-the-counter) que detenha licenças de exchange de criptomoedas nos Estados Unidos, no Canadá, no Reino Unido e em Singapura — um movimento que sinaliza o quanto os dólares digitais se tornaram centrais para os planos futuros da Visa. Esta busca por uma parceria com stablecoins da Visa surge enquanto a gigante dos cartões corre para acompanhar rivais que já fizeram movimentos ousados por conta própria.

Algo estranho aconteceu em Seul esta semana: enquanto a Ripple estava ocupada expandindo sua presença dentro do sistema bancário da Coreia do Sul, o token mais associado à empresa afundava para níveis não vistos desde 2024. Na terça-feira, a Ripple fechou um acordo de parceria com o Jeonbuk Bank, estabelecendo-o como o primeiro banco regional da Coreia a implementar o Ripple Payments em operações de remessas transfronteiriças — um acordo pensado para modernizar a forma como os clientes empresariais do banco movimentam dinheiro internacionalmente. Ainda assim, no momento em que a negociação de pagamentos transfronteiriços da Ripple Jeonbuk chegou aos sistemas, o XRP caiu abaixo de US$ 1 pela primeira vez em cerca de dois anos, um desdobramento que diz muito sobre como a adoção institucional e o preço do token agora estão seguindo em trilhas separadas.

As ações da Meta Platforms, Inc. entraram em um cenário técnico de baixa à medida que uma importante batalha legal chega ao tribunal. O preço está abaixo de todas as principais médias móveis. Enquanto isso, os procuradores-gerais estaduais argumentam que o Facebook e o Instagram foram projetados para prender usuários jovens. O resultado é uma configuração de dois lados para a META nesta semana.
META — gráfico diário com candles, EMA20/EMA50 e volume.
Principais conclusões
A META fechou em 568,97 após cair de uma máxima de 590,24 na sessão.
O preço está abaixo da EMA20 em 592,47, da EMA50 em 600,34 e da EMA200 em 630,68.

Nike, Inc. stock is under heavy technical pressure after closing at $39.09 on August 17, a 12-year low. The daily chart shows price trading well below every major moving average, confirming a structural downtrend that has been building for a long time.
NKE — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
Nike, Inc. stock closed at $39.09 on August 17, a 12-year low.
Price trades below the daily lower Bollinger Band at 39.87.
Daily RSI14 at 35.68 is weak but not yet oversold.
Hourly RSI14 at 26.07 signals oversold conditions inside the bearish structure.
Daily pivot support sits at 38.43, with resistance at 40.17.
Nike, Inc. Stock: Daily Chart Confirms a Bearish Regime
The daily chart confirms a bearish regime for Nike, Inc. stock (NKE). Momentum is negative across the board. The MACD line sits at -0.70 against a signal line of -0.48, producing a histogram of -0.22. That gap is widening, not narrowing, which shows sellers remain in control.
Still, daily RSI14 reads 35.68. That is weak, but not oversold in the classic sub-30 sense. This matters because there is still room for price to fall further. An extreme reading has not yet arrived to attract mean-reversion buyers.
Meanwhile, Bollinger Bands reinforce the same picture. The daily mid-band stands at 41.78, with the upper band at 43.69 and the lower band at 39.87. Closing at 39.09 means Nike stock is trading below its own lower band. That is a signal of a genuine breakdown, not a routine dip toward support.
Volatility has also expanded. The daily ATR14 reads 1.19, an elevated figure showing larger daily swings than usual. Pivot levels sit at a pivot point of 39.52, resistance at 40.17 (R1) and support at 38.43 (S1). Losing S1 would open the door to an extension of the down-move with limited technical cushion underneath.
Hourly Timeframe: Oversold Conditions Inside a Bearish Structure
The hourly chart confirms the bearish bias but adds one nuance. It shows genuinely oversold conditions. Hourly RSI14 has dropped to 26.07, which sits in classic oversold territory.
However, the moving averages still tell a bearish story. EMA20 (40.08), EMA50 (40.76) and EMA200 (42.00) are all stacked above the 39.08 close. This keeps the hourly regime bearish as well.
That creates the first real conflict in this setup. The daily trend says sellers remain dominant and daily RSI has not reached extreme levels. The hourly trend agrees on direction but shows momentum already stretched into oversold territory. In practice, that combination often precedes short-lived relief bounces inside a broader downtrend, rather than a reversal of the primary trend itself.
The hourly MACD remains negative as well. Its line reads -0.55 against a signal of -0.40, producing a histogram of -0.15. This is consistent with the daily reading. Bollinger Bands on the 1H frame show a mid-band of 40.36, an upper band of 42.09 and a lower band of 38.64. Price at 39.08 trades near the lower band but has not broken decisively below it.
At the same time, hourly ATR14 sits at 0.34, and pivot levels are tight. The pivot point reads 39.12, R1 at 39.21 and S1 at 39.00. That narrow band suggests the market is consolidating just above short-term support after the sharp daily breakdown.
15-Minute Execution: Short-Term Stabilization Within a Downtrend
The 15-minute chart softens slightly without changing the underlying bias. It shows early signs of short-term stabilization. EMA20 (39.26), EMA50 (39.80) and EMA200 (40.79) remain stacked bearish, and the regime tag stays bearish.
Yet RSI14 has ticked up to 36.96. Notably, the MACD histogram has flipped positive at 0.08, even though the MACD line (-0.25) remains below its signal line (-0.33). That is a subtle but real short-term signal. It suggests selling pressure is easing slightly at the intraday level.
Meanwhile, Bollinger Bands on the 15m chart are tight, with a mid-band of 39.11, an upper band of 39.39 and a lower band of 38.83. ATR14 has compressed to 0.16. Low volatility inside a downtrend often precedes a directional move. Given the higher-timeframe bias, that move is more likely to resolve lower than higher, though it is not guaranteed.
Bullish Scenario for Nike Stock
A bullish case for Nike stock exists, but it currently relies more on narrative than hard technical confirmation. Recent coverage has highlighted management changes under CEO Elliott Hill. It also points to a renewed focus on innovation and retail partnerships. One Seeking Alpha contributor cited that reasoning for buying Nike shares after a six-year hiatus.
Still, for the bullish scenario to gain traction technically, Nike stock would need to reclaim the daily pivot at 39.52. It would then need to push back above R1 at 40.17. A recovery above the hourly EMA20 near 40.08 would also signal that short-term sellers are losing control.
Daily RSI is not yet oversold. Therefore, any bounce would need real follow-through. Ideally, the daily MACD histogram would narrow to confirm the move as more than a relief rally.
Bearish Scenario and What Would Invalidate the Bullish Case
The bearish scenario is the one supported by nearly every timeframe right now. Nike shares sit at a 12-year low. As Seeking Alpha noted, the stock is not yet technically oversold on a daily basis. That means there is room for further downside before the market reaches an extreme reading.
In addition, Yahoo Finance coverage has flagged continued weakness across North America, direct-to-consumer and international segments. Wall Street skepticism also lingers over the pace of Hill’s turnaround plan.
Technically, a break below daily S1 at 38.43 would confirm continuation. This is especially true with the daily close already trading under the lower Bollinger Band. On the hourly chart, losing the 39.00 support level would remove the last short-term cushion. Should the 15-minute stabilization fail to hold above 39.00, the broader bearish structure would likely reassert itself quickly.
Closing Take
Overall, Nike, Inc. stock remains in a clearly bearish daily regime. The hourly chart confirms that structure even as RSI flags oversold conditions that could fuel short-term bounces. The 15-minute chart shows early signs of stabilization, but that context is useful only for timing, not for changing the broader bias.
Elevated ATR readings on the daily and hourly charts point to continued volatility ahead. Pivot levels around 38.43 to 40.17 will likely define the next directional decision. At the same time, market comparisons between Nike and Lululemon underscore a broader retail sector reassessment. Both names are grappling with weaker demand and steep declines.
The signals are mixed. Hourly RSI is oversold, while the daily trend has not yet reached extreme territory. Given that tension, patience matters more than conviction in either direction.
FAQ
Is Nike, Inc. stock oversold right now?
On the daily chart, RSI14 reads 35.68, which is weak but not oversold. The hourly RSI14, however, has dropped to 26.07, which sits in classic oversold territory.
What is the key support level for Nike stock?
Daily support S1 sits at 38.43. On the hourly chart, the 39.00 level aligns with S1 and acts as the last short-term cushion.
What would a bullish scenario require?
Nike stock would need to reclaim the daily pivot at 39.52 and push back above R1 at 40.17. A recovery above the hourly EMA20 near 40.08 would also help confirm short-term seller exhaustion.
Why is Nike stock under pressure?
Yahoo Finance coverage has flagged continued weakness across North America, direct-to-consumer and international segments. Wall Street also remains skeptical over the pace of CEO Elliott Hill’s turnaround plan.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, an investment recommendation, or a solicitation to buy or sell any financial instrument or cryptocurrency. The analysis provided is not indicative of future results. Investing in crypto assets and financial markets carries a high risk of capital loss. Always do your own research (DYOR) and consult a qualified financial advisor before making any decision.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Em 18 de agosto de 2026, a criptomoeda Pepe está sendo negociada dentro de um ambiente de mercado cauteloso. O gráfico diário ainda carrega o rótulo de momentum baixista. Enquanto isso, o Fear & Greed Index está em um nível de Medo (Fear) de 41, mesmo com prazos menores tentando estabilizar silenciosamente.
PEPE/USDT — gráfico diário com candles, EMA20/EMA50 e volume.
Principais conclusões
O momentum diário permanece baixista, com RSI14 em 35,75.
O Fear & Greed Index (Índice de Medo e Ganância) está em 41, sinalizando um sentimento cauteloso.
A dominância do Bitcoin perto de 56,5% mantém o capital ancorado nas principais criptomoedas.

Robots that rely on vision-language-action models to see, reason, and act in the physical world might have a hidden weak spot: their own memory chips. New research shows that bit-flip attacks VLA models can face are not just a theoretical curiosity — a handful of precisely chosen bit corruptions in a quantized model’s weights can push a robot’s task success rate straight down to zero, even though the model looked perfectly fine moments before.
The findings come from a study titled “Bit-Flip Attacks on Vision-Language-Action Models: Action-Decoding Architecture Shapes the Vulnerability,” authored by Yudong Gao, Linghan Chen, Wenhan Wu, Mia Zhou, Jiyao Wang, Kaiyan Ji, Mingyu Guo, and Honglong Chen. It is the first documented bit-flip attack aimed specifically at a VLA system, and it lands at a moment when embodied AI — models that combine language understanding with physical action — is moving quickly from research labs toward real robotic deployment.
Critical Vulnerability of Quantized VLA Models to Rowhammer Bit-Flip Attacks
Quantized VLA models are exposed to a specific kind of hardware-level threat: Rowhammer-style faults that corrupt the INT8 weights a model relies on once it’s compressed for deployment. Quantization is common practice for running large AI models efficiently on robotic hardware, but the researchers found that this same compression step opens a narrow but dangerous fault surface.
Rowhammer is a known class of hardware attack that repeatedly accesses memory rows to induce unintended bit flips in adjacent rows, effectively flipping a 0 to a 1 or vice versa without ever needing to breach software-level defenses. Applied to a VLA model’s stored weights, that means an attacker doesn’t need to hack the AI’s training pipeline or steal its code — they just need to flip the right bits, in the right place, inside deployed memory.
What makes the discovery particularly striking is the contrast between deliberate and accidental corruption. Random bit flips, even in large numbers, turned out to be largely harmless to the model’s performance. Hundreds of randomly scattered flips barely dented the system. But when the researchers used gradient information to select which bits to flip, the outcome changed dramatically — a small number of carefully chosen flips reduced closed-loop task success to 0%.
Attack Efficacy and Architecture-Dependent Vulnerability
The severity of a bit-flip attack on a VLA model depends heavily on how that model turns its internal reasoning into physical motion. Damage from these attacks doesn’t spread evenly across a model’s parameters — it concentrates in a handful of action-generating layers, and how vulnerable those layers are depends sharply on the underlying action-head architecture.
Gradient-Selected vs Random Bit Flips
The gap between random and targeted flips is the clearest signal in the whole study. Random corruption, even at scale, left the models functioning close to normal. Gradient-selected corruption, by contrast, was devastating with only a few flips. This isn’t a story about general hardware fragility — it’s a story about precision. An attacker who understands where a model’s decision-making is most sensitive can cause catastrophic failure with a fraction of the effort that random noise would require, and random noise wouldn’t come close to the same effect even with far greater volume.
Vulnerability by Action-Decoding Head Type
Across four model variants spanning three different action-head families, the researchers found that the number of bit flips needed to break a system varies enormously depending on architecture. Direct regression and token-based policies proved fragile, breaking down with as few as 1 to 5 flips. Flow-matching policies, on the other hand, needed a much larger budget — somewhere around 100 to 300 flips — to achieve the same collapse.
That difference matters for anyone evaluating robotic AI security, because it suggests architecture choice isn’t just a performance or accuracy decision — it’s also a security decision. A model built on a direct regression head may look efficient and responsive, but it could also be handing attackers an easier target.
The team also developed a fixed-direction manifold-escape loss attack, a refined technique that dramatically reduced the number of flips required to break a more resistant model. Applied to the flow-matching policy known as π0, this method cut the required budget from roughly 1,000 flips down to around 100. A matched five-direction sweep further confirmed that the attack’s effectiveness isn’t limited to an all-positive bit-flip direction, meaning the vulnerability isn’t a narrow edge case — it holds up across different directional strategies, reinforcing how broadly exploitable the flaw can be.
Mitigation Strategies and Real-World Implications
Protecting only a small slice of a model’s weights can meaningfully blunt these attacks. On a direct-head architecture, shielding just 3.1% of weights preserved 60% task success even when the model was hit with 100 flips. Protecting a slightly larger share — 5.3% of weights — pushed the point where the model’s open-loop performance broke down from just 3 flips all the way to 100, a substantial jump in resilience for a relatively modest protection footprint.
The real-world stakes became concrete once the researchers moved from simulation to an actual robot. Task-calibrated emulated attacks using 100 bit flips produced 0 out of 20 successful task completions on a physical robot. Compare that to a clean, unattacked model, which succeeded in 14 out of 20 attempts, and a model subjected to random (non-targeted) bit flips, which still managed 16 out of 20 successes. The difference between random interference and a deliberate, gradient-guided attack wasn’t incremental — it was the difference between a functioning robot and one that failed every single time.
Why this matters: as embodied AI systems move from labs into warehouses, homes, and industrial settings, the physical consequences of a compromised model are no longer abstract. A corrupted VLA model doesn’t just produce a wrong text output — it can cause a robotic arm to miss, drop, or mishandle a physical task in the real world. The researchers frame this plainly: weight integrity is a security boundary for embodied foundation models, on par with more familiar concerns like data poisoning or adversarial inputs, but operating at a lower, hardware-adjacent level that’s much harder to detect through conventional software monitoring.
The study’s authors have released accompanying code as ancillary material, giving other researchers a way to reproduce and build on the findings — a step that could accelerate both attack research and, more importantly, the defensive techniques needed to counter it.
FAQ
What type of bit-flip attacks are VLA models vulnerable to?
VLA models are vulnerable to Rowhammer-style bit-flip attacks targeting quantized INT8 weights, which can severely impair model performance.
How do gradient-selected bit flips differ from random bit flips in their impact?
Gradient-selected bit flips drastically reduce closed-loop success rates to zero, whereas hundreds of random bit flips have minimal effect.
Which parts of VLA models are most susceptible to bit-flip attacks?
Bit-flip damage concentrates in a few action-generating layers, with vulnerability strongly influenced by the action-head architecture.
Can protecting a subset of model weights improve robustness against bit-flip attacks?
Yes, protecting between 3.1% and 5.3% of weights significantly increases robustness, preserving substantial task success even under attack.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

An $18 million funding round is giving a fast-growing financial data startup fresh fuel to expand its footprint across institutional finance and artificial intelligence. Quartr, which describes itself as the world’s leading first-party data layer for institutional finance and AI, confirmed it has closed the round, with backing from both a familiar investor and a notable newcomer.
Key takeaways
Quartr, a financial data startup, has closed an $18 million funding round.
The round was led by existing investor Altos Ventures.
SEB (publ.) joined as a new investor in this round.
Quartr positions itself as the world’s leading first-party data layer for institutional finance and AI.
Quartr secures $18 million funding round
The headline number here is straightforward: $18 million. That’s the size of the fresh capital injection Quartr announced, marking a meaningful vote of confidence in its business model at a time when demand for reliable, structured financial data is climbing alongside the broader adoption of AI tools across finance.
For a company built around feeding institutional-grade data into both human analysts and machine-learning systems, a funding round of this size signals that investors see room for growth in a niche that sits right at the intersection of two booming trends: institutional finance and AI infrastructure.
Investment led by Altos Ventures with new participation from SEB
The Quartr funding round was led by Altos Ventures, a firm that was already backing the company before this latest raise. Returning investors doubling down on a startup often signals continued confidence in its trajectory, and Altos Ventures‘ decision to lead the round fits that pattern.
What stands out, though, is the arrival of a new name on the cap table: SEB (publ.). Bringing in a fresh investor alongside an existing one widens the base of financial backing behind Quartr and could open doors to new relationships within the institutional finance space, given SEB’s own standing in that world.
Why this matters: when an established backer stays in and a new strategic-sounding investor joins at the same time, it typically reflects broader validation of the startup’s direction rather than a one-off cash injection. It also suggests the Quartr funding round was structured to combine continuity with new access points into different corners of the financial industry.
Quartr’s role in institutional finance and AI
Quartr operates as a financial data startup, and it frames itself specifically as the world’s leading first-party data layer for institutional finance and AI. That positioning matters because it draws a line between raw, unverified data scraped from public sources and data that comes directly from the source—what the industry calls “first-party” information.
As institutional investors and AI systems alike lean more heavily on dependable inputs to make decisions, a company claiming leadership in first-party data infrastructure is essentially betting that accuracy and traceability will become the currency that matters most. The institutional finance data startup angle is central to Quartr’s pitch: it isn’t just collecting numbers, it’s structuring them for two very different but increasingly overlapping audiences—human analysts and AI models.
This dual focus on institutional finance and AI is likely one of the reasons the round attracted both a venture firm like Altos Ventures and a financial institution like SEB. It reflects a growing appetite among both types of investors to back the infrastructure layer that sits underneath the more visible AI applications making headlines elsewhere in finance.
FAQ
What is Quartr?
Quartr is a financial data startup described as the world’s leading first-party data layer for institutional finance and AI.
How much funding did Quartr raise?
Quartr closed a funding round of $18 million.
Who led the recent funding round for Quartr?
The funding round was led by existing investor Altos Ventures.
Did any new investors participate in Quartr’s funding round?
Yes, new investor SEB (publ.) participated in the funding round.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

Fabrinet stock (FN) extended its uptrend after record Q4 2026 results. Revenue reached $1.316 billion, up 45% year-over-year, and data center revenue surged 68%. Shares closed at 598.58 on August 17, confirming a decisive post-earnings expansion.
FN — daily chart with candlesticks, EMA20/EMA50 and volume.
Key takeaways
Fabrinet stock closed at 598.58 on August 17 after a 576.50–602.80 daily range.
Record Q4 2026 revenue reached $1.316 billion, up 45% year-over-year, with data center revenue surging 68%.
The daily MACD histogram stands at 14.26, while the 1H histogram narrows to 1.33, signaling thinning short-term momentum.
Daily RSI14 reads 63.02, and the 1H RSI14 sits at 67.07, closer to overbought territory.
Key levels are the daily pivot at 592.63, resistance at 608.75, and support at 582.45.
Daily Structure Confirms the Bullish Bias in Fabrinet Stock
The daily chart confirms a bullish bias in Fabrinet stock. Price closed near 598.58, well above every major moving average.
Trend and Momentum Structure
On the daily chart, the EMA20 sits at 529.33, the EMA50 at 538.73, and the EMA200 at 520.18. Fabrinet stock trades roughly 60 to 78 points above those levels. That is a textbook sign of trend strength, not mean-reversion behavior. At the same time, momentum backs this up. The daily MACD line stands at 15.82 against a signal line of 1.56, producing a histogram of 14.26. This wide positive spread reflects the thrust typically seen right after an earnings-driven breakout.
Overbought Check and Band Positioning
RSI14 on the daily timeframe reads 63.02. That is firmly bullish territory, yet still short of overbought extremes. It leaves room for further upside before momentum becomes exhausted. The Bollinger setup adds context. The mid-band sits at 511.01, the upper band at 613.77, and the lower band at 408.25. Price is now pushing toward the upper boundary. This typically signals strong directional pressure. However, it also raises the odds of a pause or shallow pullback once that band is tested.
Notably, the system still tags the daily regime as neutral despite this bullish alignment. Regime classifications can lag behind a fast, news-driven repricing like the one Fabrinet just experienced.
Volatility and Pivot Levels
Volatility has expanded accordingly. The daily ATR14 stands at 41.93. This wide reading confirms the stock is moving in much bigger daily increments than its recent history would suggest. The daily pivot sits at 592.63, with resistance at 608.75 and support at 582.45. Price closing above the pivot, near 598.58, keeps the near-term bias tilted higher. The 608.75 level stands out as the next meaningful test.
1H Timeframe: Trend Intact, But Momentum Is Thinning
The 1H trend remains intact and bullish, but momentum is starting to thin.
The one-hour chart largely confirms the daily picture, though with some nuance. The regime here is explicitly tagged bullish. The EMA stack agrees: EMA20 at 581.43, EMA50 at 562.07, and EMA200 at 526.56. All are stacked in proper bullish order beneath the current price of 599.10. However, the momentum picture is starting to diverge slightly from the daily strength. RSI14 on the 1H sits at 67.07, closer to overbought than the daily reading. Intraday buyers have pushed harder than the broader trend alone would justify.
The MACD histogram on the 1H timeframe is only 1.33, a much narrower spread than the daily’s 14.26. In other words, while the trend remains up, the pace of acceleration is cooling on shorter timeframes. The bigger picture stays constructive. This is a subtle but important conflict: the daily trend is strong and arguably still building, while the hourly momentum is already showing early signs of deceleration.
The 1H Bollinger bands, with a mid-point of 580.35 and an upper band of 602.58, place price right at the edge of the band. This reinforces the idea that the market is stretched in the near term. The 1H pivot at 599.30, with resistance at 602.59 and support at 595.81, defines a tight trading band. That band will likely dictate the next few hours of price action.
15-Minute Execution Context: A Pause Near the Highs
The 15-minute chart shows a pause near the highs rather than a directional reversal.
Zooming into the 15-minute chart, the picture becomes more of an execution map than a directional signal. Price closed at 599.10, matching the 1H close. The EMA20 sits at 593.62, the EMA50 at 585.99, and the EMA200 at 559.18, still a bullish alignment. RSI14 at 60.42 is moderate, neither stretched nor weak. What stands out, though, is the MACD histogram flipping to -0.06. That is a marginal but notable shift from positive to slightly negative momentum on this very short timeframe.
That flip does not overturn the broader bullish structure, but it does suggest hesitation right at the highs. The 15m Bollinger upper band sits at 601.97, essentially in line with recent price action. The pivot resistance at 602.33 sits just above the last close. Combined with the 1H reading, this paints a short-term picture of a market pausing to digest the recent surge before deciding its next move. Meanwhile, the daily trend remains the dominant force. Short-term stalling of this kind is common after a large earnings-driven gap.
Bullish Scenario
The bullish scenario points toward a daily close above 608.75 on continued volume.
That would confirm buyers are willing to chase the breakout beyond the current pivot zone. The bullish case rests on fundamental strength and technical trend alignment. Record revenue growth of 45% year-over-year, with data center revenue surging 68%, gives the rally a fundamental anchor rather than pure momentum speculation.
For this scenario to play out cleanly, daily RSI would need to stay below extreme overbought levels. Meanwhile, the MACD histogram must continue expanding to show momentum is still building rather than fading. The upcoming Rosenblatt AI Technology Summit appearance by management adds another potential catalyst. It could keep sentiment supportive in the near term.
Bearish Scenario and What Would Invalidate the Bullish Case
The bearish scenario hinges on a daily close back below 582.45. That would break the current pivot structure and open the door toward the EMA50 near 538.73.
On the other hand, the bearish argument has been building in the background, largely centered on valuation. One recent piece specifically flagged that Fabrinet stock “looks stretched” after a 479% five-year return. It noted that valuation checks now lean expensive. That narrative does not need a fundamental trigger to matter. It simply needs price to stall near resistance for sentiment to shift.
A more immediate signal would come from continued MACD histogram weakness on the 1H and 15m charts. That risk grows if the 1H RSI at 67.07 rolls over from these elevated levels. In contrast to the bullish case, this scenario does not require a change in the earnings story. It only needs a natural digestion of an already extended move.
Closing Take on Fabrinet Stock
Overall, the daily trend in Fabrinet stock remains firmly bullish. It is backed by a genuinely strong earnings print and a technical structure that has not shown any real cracks yet. The 1H timeframe confirms that trend but adds a note of caution. Momentum is thinning even as price holds near the highs. The 15-minute chart, meanwhile, shows early signs of hesitation right at resistance. That is consistent with a market pausing after a sharp move rather than reversing outright.
Given the elevated ATR readings across timeframes, volatility is likely to stay high in the near term. Positioning around the 582.45–608.75 daily range should account for sharp moves in either direction. The market continues to digest both the earnings results and the broader valuation debate.
FAQ
Is Fabrinet stock still in an uptrend?
Yes. Fabrinet stock’s daily trend remains firmly bullish, with price near 598.58 trading well above the EMA20 at 529.33, the EMA50 at 538.73, and the EMA200 at 520.18.
What drove Fabrinet stock’s latest move higher?
Record Q4 2026 results drove the move. Revenue reached $1.316 billion, up 45% year-over-year, while data center revenue surged 68%.
What are the key levels to watch?
The daily pivot sits at 592.63, with resistance at 608.75 and support at 582.45. A daily close above 608.75 would confirm the breakout, while a close below 582.45 would break the current pivot structure.
Is short-term momentum showing signs of fatigue?
Yes. The 1H MACD histogram narrows to 1.33 versus the daily reading of 14.26, and the 15-minute MACD histogram has flipped to -0.06, suggesting hesitation near the highs.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, an investment recommendation, or a solicitation to buy or sell any financial instrument or cryptocurrency. The analysis provided is not indicative of future results. Investing in crypto assets and financial markets carries a high risk of capital loss. Always do your own research (DYOR) and consult a qualified financial advisor before making any decision.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

O preço da Alphabet está preso entre duas forças concorrentes: uma tendência de alta de longo prazo intacta e uma fase corretiva de curto prazo que levou o preço abaixo das principais médias móveis. No gráfico diário, a GOOGL fechou a 344,00, abaixo das EMAs de 20 e 50 dias, mas acima da EMA de 200 dias, em 324,08.
GOOGL — gráfico diário com candles, EMA20/EMA50 e volume.
Principais conclusões
A GOOGL fechou a 344,00 no gráfico diário, abaixo da EMA de 20 dias (349,67) e da EMA de 50 dias (352,36).
O RSI14 diário em 46,03 está em território neutro, enquanto o histograma do MACD diário permanece negativo, em -0,43.

As ações da Baidu estão em um ponto técnico crítico. Após uma queda de aproximadamente 30% no acumulado do ano (YTD), a BIDU fechou a US$ 104,12, testando a máxima intradiária de US$ 104,28. A tendência diária continua de baixa, mas compradores de curto prazo estão pressionando para trás justamente quando os mercados se preparam para os resultados do 2º trimestre (Q2).
BIDU — gráfico diário com candles, EMA20/EMA50 e volume.
Principais conclusões
As ações da Baidu fecharam a US$ 104,12, acima de uma abertura de US$ 102,82 e testando a máxima intradiária de US$ 104,28.
O gráfico diário permanece em baixa, com o preço abaixo da EMA20 (107,92), da EMA50 (112,24) e da EMA200 (117,97).

O Departamento do Tesouro dos EUA apresentou uma proposta detalhada para definir quem se enquadra como emissor de stablecoin sob a nova lei federal, avançando com a regra de stablecoins da Lei GENIUS mesmo quando prazos importantes escorrem no calendário. O movimento, divulgado na segunda-feira, prepara o terreno para uma janela de 60 dias para receber comentários públicos antes que os reguladores tentem consolidar uma versão final da regra que irá definir como as stablecoins de pagamentos operam dentro dos Estados Unidos.
Principais pontos
O Tesouro dos EUA propôs definições federais para emissores de stablecoins sob a Lei GENIUS, marcando o primeiro grande passo de implementação da norma.

Uma fundação baseada na Suíça acabou de fazer uma aposta discreta, mas com efeitos importantes: que agentes autônomos de IA negociando acordos com pessoas desconhecidas precisam de algo mais próximo de uma câmara de compensação bancária do que de uma política corporativa de TI. A Apex Fusion Foundation abriu a Vector, uma camada de liquidação de agentes de IA criada para verificar, fazer escrow e liquidar trabalhos entre agentes que não compartilham um empregador, uma base de código ou mesmo um fragmento de confiança mútua. A plataforma não é uma proposta de conceito — ela está em funcionamento na mainnet há onze meses, já processando dezenas de milhares de trabalhos concluídos.

Uma placa de vídeo que antes estava destinada ao lixo da crise da mineração de criptomoedas se tornou, de repente, uma das formas mais baratas de obter memória VRAM para trabalhos com IA — e não foi preciso mais do que um pedaço de software para isso acontecer. O hack da Nvidia CMP 170HX permite que proprietários dessa GPU de mineração descontinuada desbloqueiem memória e poder de computação que a Nvidia deliberadamente desativou na fábrica, transformando um descarte de US$ 250 em algo pelo qual pesquisadores e entusiastas estão brigando repentinamente no eBay.
Principais conclusões
A Nvidia CMP 170HX roda em silício GA100 (Ampere), o mesmo chip de 7 nm encontrado no acelerador A100 da Nvidia, e inclui seis pilhas de memória HBM2e.

A breve passagem da Trump Media como empresa tesoureira de Bitcoin parece estar chegando ao fim quase tão rápido quanto começou. A empresa de mídia social, majoritariamente controlada pelo presidente Donald Trump, está recuando em sua aposta em cripto após uma queda prolongada do preço do Bitcoin ter apagado centenas de milhões de dólares “no papel”. E a mudança da Trump Media para o Bitcoin agora aponta diretamente de volta para seu negócio original de mídia e publicidade.
Principais conclusões
A Trump Media detém 12.062 Bitcoins, avaliados em cerca de US$ 755 milhões a preços atuais.
A empresa informou uma perda contábil (“no papel”) de US$ 190 milhões nessas participações depois que o preço do Bitcoin caiu por mais de 10 meses consecutivos.

H&M’s Chief Information Officer just made his first move as a shareholder in the company he joined only months ago. Diego Teijeiro Ruiz bought 8,000 shares of H&M on August 17, 2026, an H&M CIO share purchase that landed in the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority‘s insider register and immediately caught the attention of market watchers tracking executive confidence signals at the Swedish apparel giant.
Key takeaways
Diego Teijeiro Ruiz, H&M’s Chief Information Officer, bought 8,000 shares on August 17, 2026, at 174.86 kronor per share.
The total transaction was worth 1,398,880 kronor, roughly 1.4 million kronor.
This was Ruiz’s first share purchase since joining H&M in late May 2026; he had previously held no shares in the company.
The trade was disclosed through the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority’s insider register, as required for company insiders.
H&M’s CIO Purchases Shares in the Company
Diego Teijeiro Ruiz’s decision to buy into H&M marks a notable moment for a newly arrived executive, and it’s the kind of transaction that investors watching insider activity tend to notice quickly. Filings show a clean, single-day transaction rather than a gradual accumulation, which tends to draw more attention from analysts who track how leadership positions its own stake in the business.
Details of the Share Purchase
According to the disclosed record, Ruiz bought his shares on August 17, 2026, paying 174.86 kronor per share. Multiplied across the 8,000 shares acquired, the total value of the purchase comes to 1,398,880 kronor, or approximately 1.4 million kronor. That figure gives a precise snapshot of how much capital the CIO committed to H&M stock in a single transaction, at a price point that reflects where the shares were trading at the time.
Insider Register Disclosure
The purchase is publicly documented because Ruiz, as a senior executive, is legally required to report his personal trading activity in H&M stock. The transaction is shown in the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority’s insider register, the official channel where Swedish-listed companies’ insider trades must be logged for public visibility. That disclosure requirement exists precisely so investors can see when people closest to a company’s operations are buying or selling its stock.
Profile of Diego Teijeiro Ruiz and Timing of the Purchase
Ruiz holds one of the most operationally critical roles inside H&M, and the timing of his first stock purchase adds a layer of context worth examining. Coming so soon after starting the job, the trade offers an early data point on how a new member of leadership is positioning himself financially within the company.
Ruiz’s Role at H&M
Diego Teijeiro Ruiz serves as Chief Information Officer at H&M, the Sweden-listed apparel group. As CIO, he oversees the technology backbone of a retail business that depends heavily on digital infrastructure, from e-commerce platforms to supply chain systems, making his role central to how H&M competes in a fast-moving retail environment.
Timing and Prior Ownership
Ruiz started at H&M in late May 2026, meaning this H&M CIO share purchase came less than three months into his tenure. Before this transaction, he previously owned no shares in the company, so the August 17 purchase represents his first stake in H&M stock since joining. That detail matters because it shows an executive building a personal financial position in the business almost immediately after taking on the role, rather than waiting to see how his tenure unfolds.
About H&M and Regulatory Context
H&M remains one of the most recognizable names in global fashion retail, and its listing status in Sweden means executive trades like this one are subject to strict transparency rules. Those rules exist to keep the market informed about how the people running the company are treating their own equity exposure.
Company Overview
H&M is an apparel group listed in Sweden, operating across international fashion retail markets. Its scale and public listing mean that any insider transaction involving senior leadership, including a CIO’s stock purchase, becomes a matter of public record and market interest.
Insider Share Disclosure Requirements
Under Swedish market rules, executives and other company insiders must report personal transactions in their employer’s shares to the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority, which maintains the insider register used to track this activity. This is the same mechanism that surfaced Ruiz’s purchase, giving investors a transparent, verifiable record of when and how much company insiders buy or sell.
Why This Trade Matters
Insider purchases are often read by markets as a signal, even when the company itself offers no explanation for the timing or reasoning behind them. When a newly appointed CIO buys shares just months into the job, it can be interpreted as a vote of confidence in the company’s direction, though the transaction alone doesn’t reveal his motivations or whether it fits into a broader pattern of buying among H&M’s leadership team.
What’s clear from the filing is the mechanics: a specific number of shares, a specific price, and a specific date, all logged through the regulatory framework designed to keep insider activity visible to the public. Whether this single trade signals anything beyond personal financial planning is something only future disclosures, if any follow, would help clarify.
FAQ
Who is Diego Teijeiro Ruiz in relation to H&M?
Diego Teijeiro Ruiz is the Chief Information Officer of H&M.
When did Diego Teijeiro Ruiz buy H&M shares and how many did he buy?
He bought 8,000 shares of H&M on August 17, 2026.
What was the price per share and total value of the share purchase by Ruiz?
The shares were bought at 174.86 kronor per share, totaling approximately 1.4 million kronor.
Was this Diego Teijeiro Ruiz’s first share purchase in H&M after joining the company?
Yes, he previously owned no shares before this purchase, which came shortly after he joined H&M in late May 2026.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.

O Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena está prestes a quitar uma grande parcela de sua dívida bem antes do previsto. Em uma nota oficial datada de 18 de agosto de 2026, o MPS confirmou que seguirá com um resgate antecipado de título do MPS em 5 de setembro, exercendo sua opção de reembolsar integralmente uma nota sênior de 500 milhões de euros mais de um ano antes da data original de vencimento.
Principais conclusões
O MPS irá resgatar integralmente suas Notas Sênior Fixas a Flutuantes, Callable, no valor de 500.000.000 de euros, em 5 de setembro de 2026.
O título originalmente venceria em 5 de setembro de 2027, o que significa que o banco o está resgatando um ano inteiro antes do prazo.

As ações da Uber entram na sessão de terça-feira em um verdadeiro ponto de virada. A estrutura diária ainda tende ao lado construtivo, mas as ações acabaram de sofrer uma das mais acentuadas reversões de um único dia nas últimas semanas. Após abrir a 77,09, o preço fechou perto da mínima, em 74,99, à medida que os vendedores entraram com força.
Principais conclusões
As ações da Uber fecharam na segunda-feira em 74,99 após uma reversão de ampla faixa a partir de uma máxima de 77,52.
A tendência diária continua construtiva: o preço se mantém acima da média móvel de 20 dias em 73,54 e da média móvel de 50 dias em 72,93.
As ações ainda estão abaixo da média móvel de 200 dias em 76,99, que é o principal obstáculo à alta.

California’s richest residents are digging deeper into their pockets to stop a ballot measure that would take a slice of their fortunes. Over the past few weeks, a handful of billionaires and wealthy tech figures have pumped tens of millions of additional dollars into fighting the California billionaire tax, a proposal that would impose a one-time 5% levy on anyone in the state holding more than $1 billion in assets. With the November election approaching, the fight over Proposition 40 has turned into one of the most expensive political battles in the state’s recent history.
Key takeaways
Proposition 40 would levy a one-time 5% wealth tax on California residents worth more than $1 billion, with proceeds earmarked for healthcare funding.
The opposition group Building a Better California has amassed $110 million as of late June and reserved $87 million in advertising ahead of November.
A UC Berkeley poll found 48% of likely voters support the tax while 41% oppose it, with the split running largely along party lines.
Google cofounder Sergey Brin has committed $102 million to fighting the measure, while entrepreneur Mark Cuban has warned publicly against it.
Sens. Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna have introduced federal legislation to extend a similar wealth tax nationwide.
Proposition 40’s One-Time Billionaire Wealth Tax
Proposition 40 targets a very specific group: Californians with net worths above $1 billion. If voters approve it, those residents would owe a single 5% tax on their assets, with the money directed toward boosting healthcare funding across the state. It’s not a recurring annual tax — the measure is designed as a one-time collection tied to the current wave of extreme wealth concentrated in California, home to some of the world’s richest tech founders and investors.
Scope and Purpose of the Tax
The measure’s backers frame it as a way to funnel new money into the state’s healthcare system by asking the wealthiest residents to contribute once, rather than through ongoing tax hikes. Because the threshold sits at $1 billion in assets, the tax would apply only to a small but extraordinarily wealthy slice of the population — the kind of individuals who built fortunes in venture capital, cryptocurrency, and Silicon Valley technology firms.
Voter Support and Political Split
Public opinion on the Proposition 40 wealth tax is close but leaning in favor of passage, at least for now. A survey conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies, which polled more than 4,000 registered voters, found that 48% of likely voters back the measure while 41% oppose it. The breakdown reveals a familiar partisan pattern: registered Democrats overwhelmingly support the tax, only half of unaffiliated voters do, and roughly 80% of Republicans reject it outright.
Eric Schickler, co-director of the Institute of Governmental Studies, said the numbers point to a genuinely competitive race. “These results suggest that the Billionaires Tax initiative is shaping up to be a closely fought contest, with the key question being whether opponents can make big enough inroads among the state’s traditionally Democratic-leaning voters,” Schickler said in a press release.
The political lines don’t fall neatly, either. Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra have both come out against the billionaire tax, even as the California Democratic Party formally endorsed it earlier this month — a split that shows the measure cuts across the usual party alignment inside California’s own Democratic establishment.
Opposition Backed by Building a Better California PAC
Standing at the center of the resistance is Building a Better California, a political action committee formed earlier this year specifically to defeat Proposition 40. The group’s financial muscle has grown rapidly, and its latest disclosures show just how seriously California’s wealthiest residents are treating the threat.
Major Donors and Funding
According to a campaign finance filing dated August 14 and reported by the Financial Times, venture capitalist John Doerr contributed $7.5 million to the PAC, while Ripple executive chair Chris Larsen added another $10 million. Smaller but still substantial sums came from Lookout co-founder John Hering, who gave $946,000, and Greenoaks Capital founder Neil Mehta, who contributed $250,000.
Those fresh contributions build on an already massive war chest. Building a Better California reported an endowment of $110 million as of late June, a total that has continued climbing as November draws closer. The scale of that fundraising signals just how much is at stake for California’s billionaire class if the measure passes.
Advertising Campaign and Counter-Propositions
Part of that money is going straight into persuasion. The PAC has reserved $87 million worth of advertising time ahead of the November election, according to reporting from the New York Times, an enormous sum aimed at shaping public opinion before voters head to the polls.
But advertising isn’t the group’s only strategy. Building a Better California has also backed two separate ballot measures, Proposition 41 and Proposition 42, that could neutralize the billionaire tax even if it wins. Before any special tax proposal could move forward, Proposition 41 would mandate that the state auditor conduct a review of reaches voters, while Proposition 42 would ban new taxes based purely on asset ownership, such as property that hasn’t been sold. If either counter-measure receives more votes than the billionaire tax, it would cancel it out — regardless of how Proposition 40 itself fares at the ballot box.
That detail matters more than it might seem. Awareness of these counter-propositions remains low: while 72% of voters surveyed had heard of the billionaire tax itself, fewer than a third knew that Propositions 41 and 42 even existed. That gap in voter awareness could end up deciding the outcome just as much as sentiment toward the tax itself.
Public and Political Reactions
Opposition to the California billionaire tax isn’t limited to campaign filings — it’s playing out publicly, too, with some of the state’s most recognizable wealthy figures speaking out directly.
Perspectives of Influential Billionaires
Google cofounder Sergey Brin has emerged as one of the tax’s most determined opponents. Brin, who moved a significant portion of his assets out of California late last year, has now put $102 million toward fighting the measure, after adding a fresh $20 million contribution to Building a Better California earlier this month.
Mark Cuban has also weighed in, warning that the tax could push entrepreneurs out of the state entirely. In an exchange on X with California Congressman Ro Khanna, Cuban didn’t hold back: “IMO, if this passes, only idiot startup founders stay in Cali,” he wrote, framing the measure as a direct threat to the state’s startup ecosystem.
Political and Legislative Responses at State and National Levels
On the other side of the debate, Sen. Bernie Sanders has championed the idea that billionaires should shoulder more of the tax burden. Sanders said in February that the measure would show the wealthiest Americans “we are still living in a democratic society where the people have some power.”
Sanders didn’t stop at California. Alongside Rep. Ro Khanna, he introduced federal legislation in March known as the “Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act.” The Bernie Sanders wealth tax proposal would apply a 5% levy on America’s 938 billionaires, with proceeds meant to expand Medicare, reverse Medicaid cuts tied to President Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, and send a $3,000 direct payment to every person in households earning $150,000 or less.
That federal push underscores why California’s fight matters well beyond state lines. If Proposition 40 passes and survives its own counter-measures, it could become a working model — or a cautionary tale — for lawmakers pushing similar wealth taxes at the national level.
FAQ
What does Proposition 40 propose regarding wealth tax?
Proposition 40 proposes a one-time 5% wealth tax on California residents with assets over $1 billion to increase healthcare funding in the state.
Who are the major opponents of Proposition 40 and what resources have they mobilized?
The Building a Better California PAC, backed by billionaires like John Doerr and Chris Larsen, opposes the tax and has raised $110 million, reserving $87 million for advertising ahead of the November election.
How is public opinion divided on Proposition 40?
A UC Berkeley poll shows 48% of likely California voters support the tax while 41% oppose it, with support and opposition split significantly along party lines.
Are there any counter-propositions related to the billionaire tax?
Yes. Propositions 41 and 42, backed by the same PAC, would cancel out the billionaire tax if either receives more votes, even if Proposition 40 itself passes.
Article produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.