Michael Saylor’s Bitcoin juggernaut is at it again, buying near the highs with the kind of capital-markets firepower no other crypto firm can match.
Strategy, formerly known as MicroStrategy Inc., disclosed Monday that it bought $2.46 billion of Bitcoin in the past week—its third-largest purchase by dollar value since it began accumulating the cryptocurrency five years ago.
The company acquired 21,021 tokens between July 28 and Aug. 3, pushing its total holdings to 628,791 Bitcoin, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This takes the value of the company’s Bitcoin holdings to more than $71 billion at current prices.
Fueled by a steady stream of stock offerings and debt deals, Saylor has transformed his enterprise software company into the dominant corporate buyer of Bitcoin. Its latest acquisition came at an average price of $117,526 per token, the second-highest price Strategy has ever paid, just behind the $118,940 average last month, according to company data.
The move underscores how Saylor has turned public-company finance into a specialized vehicle to amass Bitcoin—and how Strategy keeps buying even as prices hover near record levels. Strategy is by far the largest corporate holder of Bitcoin, according to a tally by BitcoinTreasuries.net, and has spurred a new industry of public companies following a so-called treasury strategy dedicated to buying and holding cryptocurrencies.
To fund the purchases, Saylor has employed a combination of common and preferred share sales, as well as debt. The company offers four different kinds of securities to investors—launching its latest preferred stock offering, dubbed Stretch, in late July. Strategy reported an unrealized gain of $14 billion in the second quarter, driven by a rebound in Bitcoin’s price and a recent accounting change that required the company to revalue its Bitcoin holdings.
Saylor recently promised he won’t issue new common shares at less than 2.5 times its net asset value, except to cover debt interest or preferred dividends. This comes after critics like Jim Chanos voiced concerns on the premium Strategy’s Bitcoin holdings have on its share price and the many security offerings the company offers.
Strategy’s stock has surged more than 3,000% since its first crypto purchase, outpacing Bitcoin itself as well as major stock indices like the S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100. Its first and second largest purchases came in November last year totaling $5.4 billion and $4.6 billion, according to company data.
As the U.S. labor market shows clear signs of stalling, one of Wall Street’s leading strategists is sounding a sharp warning: With America’s workforce in a demographic crunch and historic changes in immigration policy under way, it is “quite possible that the next five years will see no growth in workers at all.”
The implications, according to David Kelly, Chief Global Strategist at JPMorgan Asset Management, are profound for the Federal Reserve and for investors—chief among them, the need for exceptional caution before lowering interest rates.
Kelly used his regular “Notes on the Week Ahead” research note to survey the implications—perhaps assess the damage—of Friday’s shocking jobs report, which revised downward job creation in May and June by 258,000 jobs. Furthermore, employers added just 73,000 jobs in July, well below the 110,000 consensus estimate. This left the average monthly increase for the past quarter at a paltry 35,000 jobs. The unemployment rate ticked up to 4.2% in July, as both employment numbers and labor force participation slipped further.
Kelly also highlighted signs of tightness in the labor market, namely the decline in the labor participation rate from 62.65% in July 2024 to 62.22% in July 2025. That translates to almost 1.2 million fewer people aged 16 and over who are working or actively looking for a job.
He attributed about half this decline to Americans aging into retirement, but noted the participation rate has also fallen among those aged 18 to 54.
Kelly commented on these signs of labor tightness as pivotal context for the wider question of the labor supply in the economy, with long-running trends implying that the Federal Reserve and embattled chair Jerome Powell will face major challenges fighting inflation going forward—meaning ever-slimmer chances of the all important rate cut the market wants so much.
The worker problem in the economy
The aging population and declining labor participation also speak to a deeper, structural challenge that will persist well into the future.
According to Census projections, he noted the working-age population will actually contract in coming years without immigration returning to previous levels.
Kelly highlights the Census prediction that the population aged 18 to 64 would actually fall by over 300,000 people in the year ending July 2026, and continue to fall at roughly that pace through 2030. He notes that the retirement wave and recent changes to major immigration programs are further sapping labor supply, reducing potential growth.
Fed’s dilemma: inflation, growth, and political pressure
This squeeze comes at a time when the Federal Reserve is under immense political pressure to lower interest rates, with President Trump and his allies calling for easier money to offset the effects of new tariffs and support flagging markets.
Yet Kelly argues the central bank must tread carefully, as cutting rates into a structurally tight labor market risks spurring wage and price inflation rather than accelerating economic growth.
He observed that U.S. economic growth has averaged 2.1% per year since the beginning of the 21st century, largely driven by a 0.8% annual increase in the workforce.
“Starting from a point of roughly full employment, given the continued retirement of the baby boom and considering the possibility that deportations and voluntary departures of immigrants entirely offset new immigration in the next few years, it is quite possible that the next five years will see no growth in workers at all,” he added.
If this happens, the economy will grow more slowly, Kelly predicted, “but will only be capable of growing more slowly without igniting higher inflation.”
For the Fed, the message is clear, he adds: Be extremely cautious about any rate cuts. For investors, it’s a warning to temper expectations for rapid economic gains or a sustained bull market driven by easy money. In other words, American “exceptionalism” isn’t a given, going forward.
Investors, Kelly said, “should no longer bet broadly on a strongly rising U.S. economic tide or lower interest rates.”
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
In a candid and far-reaching discussion on Nikhil Kamath’s YouTube channel, legendary venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, one of Fortune‘s most powerful people in business, delivered some advice for Gen Z. It could be seen as a stark warning or as simple pragmatism: the single most important skill for young workers at this moment is not specialization, but the ability to learn rapidly and adapt continuously. His reasoning is simple yet profound: “ChatGPT can teach you any new areas,” rendering traditional academic paths and fixed skill sets increasingly obsolete. The title of the episode was more blunt: “College Degrees Are Becoming Useless.”
The Sun Microsystems co-founder, known for his contrarian views and unwavering certainty in technological possibilities, painted a future where artificial intelligence (AI) will fundamentally transform the job market. He asserted that “there isn’t a job where AI won’t be able to do 80% of 80% of all jobs” within the next three to five years. He explained that the vast majority of all job functions will be replicable by AI, hence the 80% of 80% estimate. It recalled Sam Altman’s claim that AI will make result in “intelligence too cheap to meter.”
Looking 10 to 15 years out, Khosla said, he believes “there’s no chance there’s a job that humans do that AI can’t do almost as well.” He allowed for some minor exceptions and said even heart or brain surgery an AI should theoretically be able to perform to a high level, although regulation may not allow it. This rapid pace of change, faster than the world has seen in the last 50 years, demands a radical shift in how young people approach their careers, he argued.
For a 22-year-old wondering where to focus their efforts, Khosla’s advice is clear: “you have to optimize your career for flexibility, not a single profession.” He emphasized that the value of learning lies not in mastering one specific trade like welding, finance, or even accounting, but in cultivating “the ability to learn” in its own right. He claimed that at 70 years old, he is learning at a much faster pace than ever before, and every young person should strive for this capability. This includes thinking from first principles and jumping into diverse fields, whether physics, biology, or finance, because AI tools will facilitate the rapid acquisition of new knowledge.
Khosla argued that even disciplines like computer science are valuable less for programming expertise (which AI increasingly handles) and more for the “process of thinking” and understanding systems and architectures they impart. The ultimate goal for a young individual, he suggests, is to choose a path where “your knowledge compounds and your capability compounds over time,” mirroring the principle of financial compounding in knowledge acquisition.
The quality of the entrepreneur
For aspiring entrepreneurs, Khosla advises a strategic focus, since he believes that anybody in any industry not using AI will be rendered obsolete by somebody who is using the tool. While AI may democratize technology, he said, success will hinge on the innate “quality of the entrepreneur” — their ability to think strategically, envision long-term goals, select the right teams, and wisely choose who to trust for advice. Khosla believes the current shortage is not of technology or capital, but of “great entrepreneurs who know how to make these choices.”
Beyond individual careers, Khosla and Kamath talked about the wider implications of AI on the economy. Khosla said it should drive down the cost of many things, acting as a deflationary force on many services, and he envisioned an AI-powered utopian future where services like education, medical expertise, and legal advice become “almost free.” He speculated that in 20 to 25 years, $10,000 might buy more goods and services than $50,000 does today, thanks to the deflationary impact of machines providing abundant services.
The career path open to Gen Z
Khosla is far from the only thought leader weighing in on the employment prospects for Gen Z in the age of AI. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang have engaged in an ever-more-heated war of words over the former’s doomsday prediction that 50% of all white-collar jobs will be wiped out. Geoffrey Hinton, the so-called “godfather of AI,” has largely agreed with Amodei, saying that only the “very skilled” will remain employed. Huang and Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell have largely agreed with Khosla, arguing that creativity and constant learning will create new jobs for the economy in a virtuous cycle.
Goldman Sachs chief economist Jan Hatzius has looked at the data and echoed Khosla’s argument that college degrees are losing value, finding that the “safety premium” of a college degree is disappearing. Berkeley economist Brad DeLong agrees that the college degree is losing its status, but casts the blame away from AI and toward the policy uncertainty plaguing the economy, arguing that many Gen Z college graduates are going unhired because conditions are just too risky for most companies. Goldman seems to agree with DeLong, finding in July that AI was overhyped as a reason for most corporate layoffs. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve isn’t completely sold on the revolutionary prospects of AI, arguing that it may be a revolutionary invention like the electric dynamo, but may end up being a one-off boost to productivity, like the light bulb.
Gen Z, for its part, seems to be craving more human connection. Starbucks recently announced it would sunset its mobile-only locations, thought to be more appealing to Gen Z and a desire for “frictionless” experience, in favor of a renewed emphasis on hospitality and human-to-human connection. The generation has been weathering criticism of late that they lack in social skills necessary for success, with the stereotypical “Gen Z stare” at the center of the conversation. Careers site Glassdoor, for its part, has punctured the myth of “conscious unbossing” by Gen Zers, finding that they are becoming managers at exactly the same historical rate as any other generation, AI notwithstanding.
Ultimately, Khosla’s message for the next generation is one of relentless pursuit of learning and adaptability. In a world rapidly being reshaped by AI, the ability to continuously reinvent oneself and embrace new knowledge may be the ultimate differentiator for survival and success. The human capacity to learn new things, after all, is endless.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
Standard Chartered CEO Bill Winters is standing out in the global banking sector by maintaining a flexible, hybrid work policy and resisting the rigid office mandates now sweeping through much of Wall Street. As peers from companies like JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs urge staff back to traditional office rhythms, Winters has doubled down on a philosophy of employee autonomy and trust, placing his bank in sharp contrast to its US and UK peers.
In a recent interview with Bloomberg Television, Winters was unequivocal: “We work with adults, and the adults can have an adult conversation with other adults and decide how they’re going to best manage their team.” He emphasized that the approach is “working for us,” adding, “How other companies make that work? Everybody’s got their own recipe.” For Standard Chartered, that recipe is rooted in flexibility, allowing teams and managers to agree on in-office schedules that fit their business needs and personal lives.
Winters, who himself follows a hybrid schedule and aims to be in the office four days a week, says his approach is about fostering responsibility. “Our MDs want to come to the office. They come to the office because they collaborate. They manage their people. They lead teams. But if they need the flexibility, they can get it from us,” he said. This hands-off stance has helped the bank retain talent, keep attrition low, and, according to Winters, maintain a productive workforce that manages to deliver results in a post-pandemic landscape.
Standard Chartered’s performance is thriving at the moment. In the second quarter of 2025, the bank reported a 48% jump in pre-tax profit—performance Winters points to as validation of the flexible model. On the second-quarter earnings call with analysts, Winters commented on the strong results, saying they are “testament to our ability to deliver exceptional services in support of our clients’ needs, and it is clear that our strategy is working.”
A bank unlike the others
The bank’s flexible policy stands in contrast to a growing wave of office mandates from industry rivals. JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and HSBC have all tightened office attendance requirements in the last year. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon has criticized remote work for slowing decision-making and inhibiting innovation, recently directing most employees to return to the office full-time. Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon has similarly dismissed remote work as “not a new normal” but an “aberration that we are going to correct as quickly as possible.” HSBC, too, recently directed its managing directors to return to the office at least four days a week.
Other banks, like Citi, remain more flexible but still require at least three days of in-office attendance, while offering hybrid employees set windows for remote work. The trend across many sectors, including tech and telecommunications, is toward stricter in-office requirements, with some large employers warning that ongoing remote work could put jobs at risk.
Despite these pressures, Standard Chartered is holding its ground. Winters and the bank’s leadership remain vocal in their conviction that flexibility works—citing strong business results, low attrition, and positive feedback from employees, especially those balancing care responsibilities or preferring non-traditional schedules. The company was among the first major banks to formally adopt hybrid work in November 2020 and has shown little inclination to change course, even as industry sentiment shifts.
Companies who stand by remote or flexible work schedules say it leads to a better talent pool, less turnover, and a happier workplace, while critics say it’s corrosive to the human element that goes with great teamwork. Winters dismisses such concerns. He insists that, with the right leadership, teams remain collaborative and engaged, and that forcing staff into rigid molds can actually hinder, rather than help, performance.
As Wall Street and other sectors debate the future of work, Standard Chartered’s approach offers a compelling case study in the value—and business logic—of empowering employees to strike their own balance.
Standard Chartered did not respond to a request for comment.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
The shocking jobs report on Friday wasn’t as bad as it looked and was actually just fine, according to market veteran Ed Yardeni, who cited wage and workweek increases while attributing weak payroll gains to muted labor supply rather than waning demand. That’s as others on Wall Street have raised alarms about the U.S. economy nearing a recession.
Wall Street’s dreams for a bulletproof economy impervious to President Donald Trump’s trade war may have been shattered, but market veteran Ed Yardeni accentuated the positive in what was an otherwise dismal jobs report.
That’s as payrolls grew by just 73,000 last month, well below forecasts for about 100,000. Meanwhile, May’s tally was revised down from 144,000 to 19,000, and June’s total was slashed from 147,000 to just 14,000, meaning the average gain over the past three months is now only 35,000.
While Yardeni, president of Yardeni Research, acknowledged in a note Monday the report was a shocker, he maintained the labor market remains resilient.
“It’s hard to put a positive spin on this news, but not for us!” he wrote.
Yardeni pointed to solid increases in aggregate hours worked and the average workweek in the private sector. In addition, private-industry wages also saw healthy advances and hit record highs.
Meanwhile, he attributed some of the slowdown in payroll gains to the shrinking supply of workers instead of waning demand for workers.
The labor force has stopped growing in recent months amid Trump’s immigration crackdown. At the same time, gauges for labor demand have very closely tracked this supply trend so far this year, which is an unusual phenomenon, Yardeni explained.
“This implies that the weak gains in payrolls in recent months might have something to do with the supply of labor,” he added. “The demand for labor might have been temporarily weakened by employers’ holding off on hiring until Trump’s Tariff Turmoil.”
By contrast, JPMorgan economists interpreted the jobs data as an indication of weaker demand for workers.
In a note on Friday evening, they downplayed the increases in wages and average workweeks, while pointing out that hiring in the private sector has slowed to an average of just 52,000 in the past three months, with sectors outside health and education stagnating.
“We have consistently emphasized that a slide in labor demand of this magnitude is a recession warning signal,” JPMorgan added. “Firms normally maintain hiring gains through growth downshifts they perceive as transitory. In episodes when labor demand slides with a growth downshift, it is often a precursor to retrenchment.”
The note also warned the depressed job-growth pace is unlikely to sustain income gains.
Bank of America said in its own note Monday a shock to labor demand should lead to a slowdown in wage growth and hours worked. That didn’t happen. While it’s not clear demand is deteriorating faster than supply, BofA said the jobs data looks more like a supply than a demand shock so far.
For now, even though hiring has cooled sharply, there’s no sign of mass layoffs yet, and the unemployment rate has barely changed, bouncing in a tight range between 4% and 4.2% for more than a year.
The economy is still seen as holding up. The Atlanta Fed’s GDP tracker points to continued growth, though it’s expected to decelerate to 2.1% in the third quarter from 3% in the second quarter.
The supply-versus-demand question could be key in how the Federal Reserve responds, or not, to the jobs data. Given Monday’s big rally in the stock market and continued drop in Treasury yields, Wall Street is betting on Fed rate cuts soon.
JPMorgan said job creation is no longer solid, and that when combined with growing headwinds from Trump’s trade war, the recent data point to the Fed moving closer to lowering rates.
Meanwhile, BofA backed its forecast that the Fed won’t lower rates this year, and Yardeni similarly reaffirmed his view of a “none-and-done” scenario.
“That’s because we expect that the next batch of inflation indicators will show that tariffs are boosting consumer price inflation, especially of durable goods,” he added. “We also expect to see more signs of life in the labor market.”
In 2016, Dan Morehead embarked on a world tour to preach the gospel of Bitcoin. A former trader at Goldman Sachs and Tiger Management, Morehead had become orange-pilled just a few years before, convinced that Bitcoin would reshape the global economy. He believed in the currency so fervently that he came out of semi-retirement to remake his hedge fund Pantera Capital into one of the world’s first Bitcoin funds.
The new operation, launched in 2013, got off to a roaring start, with backing from two of Morehead’s fellow Princeton alumni, Pete Briger and Mike Novogratz, both from the private equity giant Fortress. The trio watched with glee as the Bitcoin purchased by Pantera at an initial price of $65 soared to over $1,000 by the end of the year. But then, disaster struck as hackers cleaned out the fledgling crypto industry’s main exchange, Mt Gox, and the price of Bitcoin plummeted 85%. “People would say, ‘Didn’t you do that Bitcoin thing that died?’” Morehead recalls. “It’s still alive!” he would respond.
During his 2016 trip to evangelize Bitcoin, Morehead took 170 meetings, each time going into a prospective investor’s office and spending an hour arguing why the new currency was the most compelling possible opportunity. The result: He managed to raise just $1 million for his flailing fund. Even worse, Morehead’s own fees totaled around $17,000. “I earned $100 a meeting, going out there trying to evangelize people to buy Bitcoins,” he tells Fortune.
Less than a decade later, as Bitcoin pushes $120,000, Morehead’s brutal early slog feels like the stuff of founder mythology— right up there with the tales of Apple’s Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak tinkering in Jobs’ parents’ garage, or Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger trading stock tips at an Omaha dinner party.
Today, Pantera manages over $5 billion in assets across different crypto funds. Its holdings comprise digital assets such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, as well as venture investments in projects such as Circle, which went public in June, and Bitstamp, which was acquired by Robinhood earlier this year for $200 million. But what sets the firm apart from the crowded field of crypto VCs is its early-mover status as a storied bridge between the buttoned-up world of traditional finance and the once-renegade crypto sector. At the center is Morehead, an unsung figure in an industry dominated by larger-than-life characters.
“I’m very stubborn, and I am totally convinced [Bitcoin] is going to change the world,” Morehead tells Fortune. “So I just kept going.”
The Princeton mafia
Back before Wall Street infiltrated the blockchain industry, Morehead’s stuck out in the chaotic world of early crypto. A two-sport athlete at Princeton in football and heavyweight crew, Morehead still has the broad shoulders and square jaw of his youth. The figure he cut was a far cry from the wiry, iconoclastic types who spent most of their time on internet message boards. Morehead, in contrast, came from the conventional world of finance. He’s still rarely spotted without a blazer.
Morehead had already had a long trading career before learning about Bitcoin. After stints at Goldman Sachs and Tiger, he began his own hedge fund, Pantera, which flamed out during the 2008 financial crisis, right around the time that a shadowy figure named Satoshi Nakamoto introduced Bitcoin to the world in an online white paper.
Morehead first heard about Bitcoin in 2011 from his brother and was vaguely aware that a classmate from Princeton, Gavin Andresen, was running a website that gave out 5 Bitcoins to any user for solving a captcha (current street value: $575,000). But Morehead didn’t think much about it until a couple of years later, when another classmate, Briger, invited Morehead for coffee at the San Francisco office of Fortress to talk crypto, with Novogratz calling in. “Since then, I’ve been possessed by Bitcoin,” Morehead says.
Tech is famous for its so-called “mafias”—clusters of employees from prominent organizations like PayPal who go on to lead the next generation of startups. In crypto, it’s not a company but a university, with Princeton responsible for some of the industry’s most influential projects. Briger and Novogratz both served as key backers of Pantera, with Morehead even moving into empty office space at Fortress’s SF office. Briger remains a powerful, albeit behind-the-scenes, presence in crypto, recently taking a seat on the board of directors of Michael Saylor’s $100 billion Bitcoin holding firm, Strategy. Novogratz went on to found Galaxy, one of the largest crypto conglomerates. And another classmate, Joe Lubin, went on to become one of the cofounders of Ethereum.
But back in 2013, it still seemed far-fetched that Ivy League graduates working in the rarified fields of private equity and macro trading would be interested in Bitcoin. Briger tells Fortune that he first learned about it from Wences Casares, an Argentine entrepreneur and early crypto adopter, while sharing a room at a Young Presidents’ Organization gathering in the San Juan Islands. Briger quickly saw the appeal of upending the global payments system—a point he sticks by today, though he argues that Bitcoin is still in its infancy. He says that Bitcoin mirrors the promise of the internet, which facilitated a new form of information flow. “The fact that money movement doesn’t happen in the same way is a real shame,” he says.
After sharing the idea with Novogratz, they thought that Morehead, who had experience working in foreign exchange markets, would be the right person to bring on. When Morehead decided to devote the rest of his financial career to crypto, he rebranded Pantera as a Bitcoin fund and opened it back up to outside investors. Briger and Novogratz both signed on as limited partners, with Fortress and the venture firms Benchmark and Ribbit taking general partner stakes, though they would later withdraw. His old mentor at Tiger, the legendary investor Julian Robertson, even backed a later fund.
Pantera’s rebirth
In the hurley-burly early days of crypto, entrepreneurs had to confront dramatic booms and busts that make today’s volatility look like minor blips. But the wild price roller-coaster wasn’t the biggest headache, Novogratz recalls. It was simply trying to procure BTC in the first place.
He went to Coinbase, then just a year old, to try and buy 30,000 Bitcoins, which would have sold for around $2 million. He was met with a pop-up that his limit was $50. After trying to work it out with Olaf Carlson-Wee—Coinbase’s first employee, who would go on to become a famed crypto figure in his own right—the firm agreed to increase his limit all the way to $300.
Morehead’s most impressive achievement, however, may be sticking it out during the doldrums of 2013 through 2016, when prices remained in the basement and no one outside of the insular blockchain community paid Bitcoin much mind. “In those quiet years where crypto wasn’t doing shit, Dan was out there beating the pavement,” Novogratz tells Fortune.
That epoch still had its highlights, including three annual conferences hosted by Morehead out of his Lake Tahoe home. At one, Jesse Powell, the founder of the exchange Kraken, opted out of taking a private plane chartered by Morehead and drove instead. “There was a large enough fraction of the Bitcoin community [there] that he feared if the plane crashed, it would take Bitcoin down,” Morehead recalls.
Unlike many of his compatriots, Morehead never positioned himself as a “Bitcoin maxi,” or someone who argues that no other cryptocurrencies should exist. After buying up 2% of the global Bitcoin supply, Pantera became an early investor in Ripple Labs, which created the digital asset XRP. “The way I think about it is Bitcoin is obviously the most important,” Morehead says. “But there isn’t one internet company.”
According to Morehead, Pantera has made money on 86% of its venture investments. It’s a staggering figure considering that the vast majority of VC-backed startups fail. Crypto may be more forgiving given that many projects come with an accompanying cryptocurrency, meaning speculative value often endures even if a startup’s product goes nowhere.
Morehead now spends half his year in Puerto Rico, which has become a hotbed for crypto. Joey Krug, then a partner at Pantera and now at Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, had relocated down there, and Morehead decided to make the move. He estimates there are 1,000 blockchain entrepreneurs on the island, though they’ve drawn scrutiny for driving up real estate prices. Morehead faced an inquiry from the Senate Finance Committee over whether he violated federal tax laws by moving to the island and earning more than $850 million in capital gains from Pantera. He told the New York Times earlier this year that he believed he “acted appropriately with respect to my taxes” and declined to comment further to Fortune.
Bitcoin’s future
Morehead acknowledges that much of the crypto industry is saturated with gambling, with Pantera staying away from memecoins, unlike many other venture firms. Still, he argues that it shouldn’t distract from blockchain’s broader goal of reshaping global finance. “It’s ridiculous to try and take down the blockchain industry because of a little sideshow,” he says. “[GameStop] doesn’t mean the entire U.S. equity market is tainted.”
Pantera continues to grow, including raising a fifth venture fund with a $1 billion target, which Morehead says the firm will close after finishing investing out of its fourth fund later this year. Pantera has also moved into the red-hot field of digital asset treasuries, where publicly traded companies buy and hold cryptocurrencies on their balance sheets.
But Bitcoin remains at the core of Pantera’s strategy. At the end of last year, its Bitcoin fund hit 1,000x, with a lifetime return of over 130,000%. When asked for a prediction of where Bitcoin is headed, Morehead has always had the same answer: The price will double in a year. For the most part, the simple model has worked, though Morehead admits the days of rapid growth are likely slowing down. He argues Bitcoin will still go up another order of magnitude, meaning it will approach $1,000,000, though he thinks that will be the last time it has a 10x increase.
Morehead is happy to shoulder the criticism if Bitcoin never reaches that milestone. In 2016, after all, he was struggling to make the case for the cryptocurrency at $500. And less than a decade later, he’s just getting started. “I have the same conviction—the vast majority of institutions have zero,” he tells Fortune. “It feels like we have another couple of decades to go.”
Updated to reflect the latest regulatory filing figures on assets under management.
Tesla founder and CEO Elon Musk has seen his wealth plummet by some $80 billion this year, thanks in part to a 20% decline in his electrical vehicle company’s stock. Now, just $60 billion separates Musk from Oracle’s Larry Ellison—and another Tesla tumble could see Musk dethroned as the world’s richest man.
Elon Musk claims to have slashed billions of dollars worth of wasteful spending during his time as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—but his controversial role may have done more damage to his pocketbook than he anticipated.
This year alone, Musk has lost some $80 billion in his net worth, bringing his current value to about $352 billion—a far cry from his over $450 billion peak late last year, according to Bloomberg’s Billionaire Index.
Musk’s wealth declines are largely tied to his 13% stake in struggling Tesla. Even after shareholders practically begged the billionaire to leave DOGE and focus on Tesla full-time, Musk’s return to Austin hasn’t been so glamorous. The electric vehicle company missed Wall Street expectations and experienced a double-digit percentage revenue decline in the second quarter of 2025. Tesla’s stock price is down nearly 20% this year.
But shareholders are doing the opposite of pulling the plug on Musk; they’ve just awarded him a pay package worth some $29 billion—in what shareholders called a “critical first step toward” keeping “Elon’s energies focused on Tesla,” reports The New York Times.
While Musk remains the No. 1 richest person on the planet, fellow members of the ultra rich like Larry Ellison and Mark Zuckerberg are tapping at the door to replace him at the top of the billionaire list.
Musk’s climb to the top of the world
2024 was a standout year for Tesla. The company’s stock nearly doubled, with the market cap topping $1.4 trillion in December. Due to his sizable stake, the jump soared Musk’s wealth and seemingly cemented him at the time at the top of the billionaires after years of back and forth among billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates.
Musk’s success also comes from his stakes in his other companies, including XAI Holdings (the combined firm of social media X and AI startup xAI), SpaceX, Neuralink, and The Boring Company.
But like struggles at Tesla, his companies are causing financial headaches for the billionaire. xAI is reportedly burning through $1 billion a month and The Boring Company’s valuation has decreased to $6.4 billion from $8.6 billion in July 2023, according to Bloomberg.
While he did not take a salary from his role at DOGE, his companies have largely benefited from working with the government over the years. According to The Washington Post, his businesses have received some $38 billion in contracts, loans, subsidies, and more.
Now, Musk has an uphill battle ahead of him in the court of public opinion; just 30% of voters have a favorable view of Musk, according to a Quinnipiac Poll released in June. And after a public feud with President Donald Trump over the federal budget, even support among Republicans has dipped.
How Musk may lose his richest man title
While Musk has lost the most wealth of anyone in 2025 so far, he’s not alone. Jeff Bezos is also in the red, losing about $1.7 billion this year, largely thanks to Amazon’s struggling stock performance. Bill Gates has also lost a sizable amount of wealth—some $36 billion—but it’s been because of his ramped-up philanthropy efforts.
On the flip side, Larry Ellison (+$102 billion), Mark Zuckerberg (+$56 billion), and Jensen Huang ($37 billion) have seen sizable wealth increases.
Only $60 billion now separates Musk and Ellison as No. 1 and 2, according to Bloomberg, thanks to the newfound success of Ellison’s tech giant, Oracle. The company’s newfound focus on AI helped earnings soar and contributed to a stock jump of over 50% this year. Ellison’s wealth has grown by over $100 billion this year—and it’s likely to only continue.
“Oracle’s future is bright in this new era of cloud computing. Oracle will be the number one cloud database company,” Ellison said in the business’ earnings call in June. “Oracle is already prospering in this new era of cloud computing and AI, and it’s just the beginning.”
If the trends continue, and Oracle continues to grow while Tesla flounders, Ellison could replace Musk as the richest person in the world by year’s end.
If the Tesla billionaire’s wealth drops by another $60 billion, Elon Musk will lose his crown as the richest person on the planet to Oracle’s Larry Ellison.
Vietnam’s Vinfast began production at a $500 million electric vehicle plant in southern India’s Tamil Nadu state on Monday, part of a planned $2 billion investment in India and a broader expansion across Asia.
The factory in Thoothukudi will initially make 50,000 electric vehicles annually, with room to triple output to 150,000 cars. Given its proximity to a major port in one of India’s most industrialized states, Vinfast hopes it will be a hub for future exports to the region. It says the factory will create more than 3,000 local jobs.
The Vietnamese company says it scouted 15 locations across six Indian states before choosing Tamil Nadu. It’s the center of India’s auto industry, with strong manufacturing, skilled workers, good infrastructure, and a reliable supply chain, according to Tamil Nadu’s Industries Minister T.R.B. Raaja.
“This investment will lead to an entirely new industrial cluster in south Tamil Nadu, and more clusters is what India needs to emerge as a global manufacturing hub,” he said.
VinFast Asia CEO Pham Sanh Chau said the company has aspirations to export cars across the region and it hopes to turn the new factory into an export hub.
The new factory could also mark the start of an effort to bring other parts of the Vingroup empire to India. The sprawling conglomerate, founded by Vietnam’s richest man Pham Nhat Vuong, began as an instant noodle company in Ukraine in the 1990s and now spans real estate, hospitals, schools and more.
Chau said Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin had invited the company to “invest in a big way” across sectors like green energy, smart cities and tourism, and said that the chief minister had “promised he will do all what is necessary for us to move the whole ecosystem here.”
A strategic pivot to Asia
Vinfast’s foray into India reflects a broader shift in strategy.
The company increasingly is focusing on Asian markets after struggling to gain traction in the U.S. and Europe. It broke ground last year on a $200 million EV assembly plant in Indonesia, where it plans to make 50,000 cars annually. It’s also expanding in Thailand and the Philippines.
Vinfast sold nearly 97,000 vehicles in 2024. That’s triple what it sold the year before, but only about 10% of those sales were outside Vietnam. As it eyes markets in Asia, it hopes the factory in India will be a base for exports to South Asian countries like Nepal and Sri Lanka and also to countries in the Middle East and Africa.
India is the world’s third-largest car market by number of vehicles sold. It presents an enticing mix: A fast growing economy, rising adoption of EVs, supportive government policies and a rare market where players have yet to completely dominate EV sales.
“It is a market that no automaker in the world can ignore,” said Ishan Raghav, managing editor of the Indian car magazine autoX.
A growing EV market in India
EV growth in India has been led by two and three-wheelers that accounted for 86% of the over six million EVs sold last year.
Sales of four wheel passenger EVs made up only 2.5% of all car sales in India last year, but they have been surging, jumping to more than 110,000 in 2024 from just 1,841 in 2019. The government aims to have EVs account for a third of all passenger vehicle sales by 2030.
“The electric car story has started (in India) only three or four years ago,” said Charith Konda, an energy specialist who looks at India’s transport and clean energy sectors for the think-tank Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis or IEEFA. New cars that “look great on the road,” with better batteries, quick charging and longer driving ranges are driving the sector’s rapid growth, he said.
The shift to EVs is mostly powered by Indian automakers, but Vinfast plans to break into the market later this year with its VF6 and VF7 SUV models, which are designed for India.
The company chose the VF7 for its India launch—unlike the models introduced in the U.S., Canada, the EU, or Southeast Asia—to position itself as a premium global brand while keeping the price affordable, added Chau, the Vinfast Asia CEO.
Can Vinfast succeed where Chinese EVs faltered?
Chinese EV brands that dominate in countries like Thailand and Brazil have found India more challenging.
After border clashes with China in 2020, India blocked companies like BYD from building their own factories. Some then turned to partnerships. China’s SAIC, owner of MG Motor, has joined with India’s JSW Group. Their MG Windsor, a five-seater, sold 30,000 units in just nine months, nibbling Tata Motors’ 70% EV market share down to about 50%.
Tata was the first local automaker to court mass-market consumers with EVs. Its 2020 launch of the electric Nexon, a small SUV, became India’s first major EV car success.
Vinfast lacks the geopolitical baggage of its larger Chinese rivals and will also benefit from incentives like lower land prices and tax breaks for building locally in India. That’s part of India’s policy of discouraging imports with high import duties to help encourage local manufacturing and create more jobs.
“India’s stand is very clear. We do not want to import manufactured cars, even Teslas. Whether it’s Tesla or Chinese cars, they are taxed heavily,” added Konda.
An uphill battle in a tough market
The road ahead remains daunting. India’s EV market is crowded with well-entrenched players like Tata Motors and Mahindra, which dominate the more affordable segment, while Hyundai, MG Motors and luxury brands like Mercedes-Benz and Audi compete at high price points.
Indians tend to purchase EVs as second cars used for driving within the city, since the infrastructure for charging elsewhere can be undependable. Vinfast will need to win over India’s cost-sensitive and conservative drivers with a reputation for quality batteries and services while keeping prices low, said Vivek Gulia, co-founder of JMK Research.
“Initially, people will be apprehensive,” he said.
Vinfast says it plans to set up showrooms and service centers across India, working with local companies for charging and repairs, and cutting costs by recycling batteries and making key parts like powertrains and battery packs in the country.
Chau added that after a customer clinic in September 2024 and input from top engineers in Vietnam, the company upgraded its feature list to better match Indian customer expectations.
Scale will be key. VinFast has signed agreements to establish 32 dealerships across 27 Indian cities. Hyundai has 1,300 places for Indians to buy their cars. Building a brand in India takes time—Hyundai, for instance, pulled it off over decades, helped by an early endorsement from Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan.
VinFast can succeed if it can get its pricing right and earn the trust of customers, Gulia said, “Then they can actually do really good.”
The new factory could mark the start of an effort to bring other parts of the Vingroup empire to India. The sprawling conglomerate, founded by Vietnam’s richest man Pham Nhat Vuong, began as an instant noodle company in Ukraine in the 1990s and now spans real estate, hospitals, schools and more.
China’s long-term economic growth is at risk owing to a shrinking labor force and rapidly aging population, according to Oxford Economics. The country’s potential output growth could fall below 2% by the 2050s, as low birth rates and a rising dependency ratio strain productivity and public finances. While developed nations like the U.S. may buffer this with immigration, China and others face tougher challenges in sustaining growth and managing social support systems.
China may be the only nation that could rival America’s economic dominance. But its long-term prospects will potentially be cut off at the knees by a fundamental flaw: It won’t have the people to keep its growth going.
According to a new report from Oxford Economics, the potential output growth for China could fall from around 4% in the 2020s to less than 2% by the 2050s.
That’s on account of the country’s labor force shrinking at an advanced rate, with its fertility rates falling below “replacement levels,” where new workers equal the amount of individuals leaving employment.
But not only is there the fundamental issue of not having enough people to do the legwork to keep the economy moving, there’s also the knock-on impact of lower consumption—and hence less business investment, a slower pace of innovation, and increased government debt as leaders seek to support an older population with fewer people to provide for them.
“As populations age, the younger cohorts are often smaller than older ones due to declining birth rates. This raises the dependency ratio, with fewer working-age people supporting a growing number of retirees,” wrote Oxford Economics’ Marco Santaniello and Benjamin Trevis late last week. “We anticipate this pressure being felt most acutely in developing economies like China and Brazil, where populations are still relatively young but aging fast.”
Indeed, per the World Population Review, China’s birth rate was 7.24 live births per 1,000 people in 2025. By contrast, this figure stood at 11 in the U.S. In comparable nations like Canada, the birth rate stood at 9.82 per 1,000 people, and 10 per 1,000 people in the U.K.
As a result, per Oxford Economics’ calculations, the dependency ratio in China (the working age population age 16–plus compared with people age 65 or older) will shift by 60 percentage points between 2010 and 2060.
In Thailand, this figure sits at a little over 40 percentage points, while Brazil sits at approximately 35.
By contrast, the United States sits at a little over 10 and the United Kingdom at approximately 15, though the economists point out that “dependency ratios in developed economies will rise more slowly … because developed economies are already experiencing rising dependency ratios, so the starting point is higher.”
Developed economies also have a further option available to them: powering their GDP with labor gathered from around the world.
“Immigration helps ease some of the strain by increasing the working-age population. For example, we have shown that in the U.S., if immigration grew from 1.1 million in 2023 to 1.5 million by 2033 and stabilized thereafter, it would provide a notable boost to economic potential by 2050,” Santaniello and Trevis explained.
The retirement question
In developed nations like the U.S., the conversation about declining birth rates and aging populations is already in the mainstream.
On fertility, for example, the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, has already weighed in. Responding to a post about declining American birth rates on his social media site X earlier this year, Musk wrote: “Low birth rates will end civilization.”
Likewise, figures such as BlackRock’s Larry Fink have called on the government to begin a national conversation about the public’s need to save for retirement, instead of relying on the state for support.
He told CNN earlier this year: “One of the fundamental problems in America is, retirement’s not that bad of a problem for the top Fortune 500 companies. We are providing enough support to our employees where they’re getting the adequacy of retirement.
“It’s beyond that. We refuse to talk about, how do we get more broadening of our economy with more Americans participating in that? That’s why we have to have a conversation in Washington, this has to be considered a national priority and a national promise to all Americans.”
To this end, the Oxford Economics report shows, America’s debt-to-GDP ratio could spiral beyond 250% by 2060 as the government tries to keep up with payments to support its aging population.
“In economies with less-developed social safety nets, the burden of aging populations increasingly falls on households via informal caregiving responsibilities,” the economists wrote.
Meanwhile, in nations with more “generous” welfare systems: “Without reform, such as raising retirement ages or boosting labor force participation, many welfare systems risk becoming unsustainable. In our scenario, public debt rises sharply across most advanced economies and in several emerging markets. Heavily indebted countries will be least able to absorb the economic impact of demographic change, and will struggle to respond to future downturns with limited fiscal space.”
Trump Media & Technology Group lost $20 million in the second quarter. The parent company of Trump’s Truth Social saw share prices rise, however, in large part because of its broad Bitcoin holdings. Trump’s holding in the company is currently worth $2 billion.
Typically, if a publicly traded company announced sales of less than $1 million and a quarterly loss of $20 million, that might spook investors. At Trump Media & Technology Group, it’s giving the stock a slight boost.
The parent company of Trump’s Truth Social, in its quarterly earnings, reported $883,300 in net sales for the second quarter. That’s 5.5% higher than a year ago. The $19.7 million net loss compared to a $16.4 million loss in the second quarter of 2024.
Despite that, the stock was up 1.5% in mid-morning trading on Monday.
What gives? Despite the lackluster sales and notable loss, Trump Media is still a cash-rich company thanks to its significant Bitcoin holdings. The 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission lists financial assets of roughly $3.1 billion, an 800% year-over-year increase. Of that amount, $2.4 billion is in Bitcoin, which it bought in July.
“Among other benefits, the Bitcoin treasury strategy allows Trump Media to give its investors indirect exposure to cryptocurrencies, creates investment income, helps position the Company for expansion, and solidifies the Company’s financial freedom, including enhancing security against debanking and other acts of political discrimination,” TMTG said.
Trump owns 114.75 million of the company’s outstanding shares through a revocable trust. That works out to 52% of the company’s total outstanding shares, according to the company’s 2025 proxy statement.
As of Monday morning, that holding was worth $2 billion. That’s considerably less than the $4 billion it was worth on Jan. 1. Shares of Trump Media & Technology Group are down 50% year to date.
Anthropic billionaire CEO Dario Amodei says many of his employees are turning down Meta’s $100 million poaching offers, adding they “wouldn’t even talk to Mark Zuckerberg.” And the tech titan isn’t willing to fight fire with fire by raising his own star staffers’ salaries to convince them to stay at the $61.5 billion AI company, saying it’s “unfair” and could hurt company culture. Amodei and other Silicon Valley CEOs, including Sam Altman, have criticized Meta’s strategy as being a killer for company culture.
“Relative to other companies, a lot fewer people from Anthropic have been caught by these. And it’s not for lack of trying,” Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei recently revealed on the Big Technology Podcast. “I’ve talked to plenty of people who got these offers at Anthropic and who just turned them down. Who wouldn’t even talk to Mark Zuckerberg.”
Meta’s been on a tear to dominate AI—and if it can’t grow the talent internally, its CEO Zuckerberg has no qualms about buying it instead. In June, reports revealed that he’s been poaching staff at competitor companies (including OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic) with $100 million signing bonuses, in an effort to beef up his “superintelligence” AI lab.
Some have taken up his envy-inducing offer, including at least seven staffers from OpenAI, but Amodei insisted that most of his employees haven’t taken the bait—and he’s not throwing money at staff to keep them.
Why Anthropic’s CEO won’t use cash to convince workers to stay
Employers may be tempted to fight fire with fire by raising their AI stars’ salaries or recruiting others in return—but Anthropic thinks it would hurt its company culture.
“We are not willing to compromise our compensation principles, our principles of fairness, to respond individually to these offers,” Amodei said. “The way things work at Anthropic is there’s a series of levels. One candidate comes in, they get assigned a level, and we don’t negotiate that level, because we think it’s unfair. We want to have a systematic way.”
Amodei not only thinks that it’s unfair to raise salaries to have his workers stick around, but that it could actually backfire on his billion-dollar company’s mission. In actuality, staying true to his compensation practices amid the poaching chaos has been a win for Anthropic’s culture.
“I think actually this was a unifying moment for the company where we didn’t give in. We refused to compromise our principles, because we had the confidence that people are Anthropic because they truly believe in the mission,” Amodei continued.
“The only way you can really be hurt by this is if you allow it to destroy the culture of your company by panicking, by treating people unfairly, in an attempt to defend the company.”
Fortune has reached out to Anthropic and Meta for comment.
Amodei’s criticism of Zuckerberg’s $100 million poaching strategy
Zuckerberg’s aggressive poaching strategy has ruffled some feathers in the AI world. Being scooped up with a $100 million pay package is a dream for most, but the Anthropic CEO has called out the practice for being fundamentally unfair.
“If Mark Zuckerberg throws a dart at a dart board and hits your name, that doesn’t mean that you should be paid 10 times more than the guy next to you who’s just as skilled, who’s just as talented,” Amodei said on the podcast.
Plus, Amodei thinks the hiring strategy is flat-out counterproductive to what Meta wants to get done. The CEO is proud of his staffers for not giving in to the $100 million offer—and that same loyalty isn’t something that can be bought. And other AI talent seem to want in on Amodei’s culture; engineers at OpenAI were eight times more likely to leave the company for Anthropic. The company also has an 80% retention rate for employees hired over the last two years, compared to 78% at Google DeepMind, and 67% at OpenAI. Ironically, Meta is trailing behind at 64%.
Having employees who can do revolutionary work is one thing, but having a culture that makes them want to stay is another. By poaching others, Amodei doubts Meta is recruiting the best fits for its mission.
“I think that what they are doing is trying to buy something that cannot be bought: and that is alignment with the mission. I think there are selection effects here,” he said. “Are they getting the people who are most enthusiastic, who are most mission aligned, who are most excited?”
Other tech leaders, including OpenAI’s Sam Altman, have echoed Amodei’s criticism. Altman said that while Meta has managed to poach some staffers, “so far none of our best people have decided to take them up on that.” Even though Zuckerberg has snatched some of his AI workers, Altman is doubtful that his competitor will be able to replicate the same success of OpenAI.
“I think that there’s a lot of people, and Meta will be a new one, that are saying ‘We’re just going to try to copy OpenAI,’” Altman said on theUncapped podcast last month. “That basically never works. You’re always going to where your competitor was, and you don’t build up a culture of learning what it’s like to innovate.”
Anthropic’s billionaire boss Dario Amodei is refusing to match sky-high salaries to keep his staff—yet retention is higher there than at Meta, OpenAI, or Google DeepMind.
When I was the chief of pediatrics at Aga Khan University hospital in Karachi, Pakistan, I spent a lot of time caring for the babies of new mothers suffering from preeclampsia. Too often, the babies were born too early and too small—and I couldn’t save them.
The hardest part about being a pediatrician is having to tell the parents their precious baby did not survive. The second hardest is not being able to explain why.
Preeclampsia is a significant cause of death for mothers and newborns in places like Karachi and in Seattle, where I live now, yet we do not know what causes it and there is no cure.
The primary reason for this deadly gap in our knowledge is neglect. According to a 2021 analysis led by McKinsey & Company, just 1% of healthcare research and innovation is invested in female-specific conditions beyond oncology. And for conditions that affect women and men, women are severely underrepresented in clinical trials, so we’ve barely scratched the surface of understanding how women experience common conditions like cardiovascular diseases.
As a result, there is a long list of serious and pervasive conditions without good solutions, including autoimmune diseases, heavy menstrual bleeding, and endometriosis. Endometriosis causes severe pelvic pain and affects one in 10 women globally, but it’s so misunderstood that 65% of women are initially misdiagnosed.
This is why, despite living longer than men, women spend more time in poor health—no matter where in the world they live.
Finding answers to longstanding questions about women’s health is a big driver of our gender equality work at the Gates Foundation. This also is fundamental to achieving our 20-year goals of helping end preventable deaths of moms and babies, reducing suffering from deadly infectious diseases, and lifting millions out of poverty onto a path to prosperity.
We’re proud to have contributed with our partners to the incredible progress made over the last 25 years: maternal mortality declined by 40%, expanded access to the HPV vaccine has prevented over 1 million future cases of cervical cancer, and advancements in contraceptives have given women better tools to help them decide whether and when to get pregnant. We still have a long way to go, which is why I am pleased the foundation announced today that it is committing $2.5 billion to women’s health innovation over the next five years.
That commitment is a good start. But it’s also a drop in the bucket compared to what’s needed. I think the rest of the bucket can and should be filled up by private sector partners.
That’s because women in high-income countries have many of the same health problems in common with women in low- and middle-income countries. There is a massive untapped market opportunity to invent and deliver the solutions women everywhere need. Biotech, consumer health, and pharmaceutical companies should be doing more in women’s health. Above and beyond the moral reasons, it simply makes good business sense.
McKinsey & Company estimates that investing in treatments for endometriosis, for example, has a market potential of $180 billion to $250 billion, comparable to the market for big-ticket conditions like diabetes.
Or consider the many use cases for an AI-powered portable ultrasound, which the foundation helped to develop for the two thirds of women in low- and middle-income countries who don’t have access to expensive ultrasound machines. It’s a wand that plugs into a tablet running an algorithm trained with thousands of ultrasound images, and it can be used by workers who haven’t been trained in obstetrics. Research shows this simple device can identify high-risk pregnancies early and even identify gestational age with more accuracy than humans.
This tool is very useful in remote Kenya, one of the areas where the AI ultrasound was tested. But it’s just as useful in, say, North Dakota, where one in four women have to drive for over an hour to reach the nearest birthing hospital. In 2022, about 2.3 million U.S. women of child-bearing age lived in “maternity deserts,” defined as counties without a hospital, birth center, and doctors and nurse midwives with experience delivering babies.
Thanks to advances in AI, this tool can be adapted for uses beyond obstetric care. Today, people travel to specialty care or emergency rooms to get screened for conditions like breast cancer and heart disease. With portable imaging devices, those screenings could one day be done at local primary care facilities in both high- and low-income countries.
The list of opportunities goes on. Preeclampsia is tricky to diagnose, because women can present with the main symptoms of high blood pressure and proteinuria for many reasons. False positives lead to long, unnecessary hospitalizations, while false negatives can result in a last-minute scramble with fatal consequences. The state-of-the-art sFIt-1PIGF ratio test removes the uncertainty by measuring the levels of two proteins that play a role in the development of new blood vessels in the placenta. In 2024, the FDA approved the test for use in the United States, and the Gates Foundation is supporting studies to adapt it for use in low- and middle-income countries.
Last year, a colleague of mine at the foundation was concerned she might have preeclampsia. She’d been monitoring her blood pressure on her own, but the results were inconclusive. She took the sFIt-1PIFG test at 26 weeks, and it confirmed she had preeclampsia and predicted how much time she had left until she would have to deliver. She was immediately hospitalized and intensely monitored. Six weeks later she gave birth to a beautiful baby girl whose name, Mihika, means “dew drops.”
This test can save the lives of women like my colleague, and it can also save the lives of women like those I used to care for back in Karachi.
And the test is just the beginning. There is still no cure for preeclampsia, and preeclampsia is just one of many woman-specific issues that need solving. If we could close the gap for nine major conditions, it would create 27 million years of healthy life per year—or about three extra healthy days every single year for every single woman on the planet.
That’s the right thing to do. It’s also a great opportunity for entrepreneurs, innovators, and investors. Women around the world have waited too long for better solutions. Together, we can deliver.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
When Susana Pacheco accepted a housekeeping job at a casino on the Las Vegas Strip 16 years ago, she believed it was a step toward stability for her and her 2-year-old daughter.
But the single mom found herself exhausted, falling behind on bills and without access to stable health insurance, caught in a cycle of low pay and little support. For years, she said, there was no safety net in sight — until now.
For 25 years, her employer, the Venetian, had resisted organizing efforts as one of the last holdouts on the Strip, locked in a prolonged standoff with the Culinary Workers Union. But a recent change in ownership opened the Venetian’s doors to union representation just as the Strip’s newest casino, the Fontainebleau, was also inking its first labor contract.
The historic deals finalized late last year mark a major turning point: For the first time in the Culinary Union’s 90-year history, all major casinos on the Strip are unionized. Backed by 60,000 members, most of them in Las Vegas, it is the largest labor union in Nevada. Experts say the Culinary Union’s success is a notable exception in a national landscape where union membership overall is declining.
“Together, we’ve shown that change can be a positive force, and I’m confident that this partnership will continue to benefit us all in the years to come,” Patrick Nichols, president and CEO of the Venetian, said shortly after workers approved the deal.
Pacheco says their new contract has already reshaped her day-to-day life. The housekeeper no longer races against the clock to clean an unmanageable number of hotel suites, and she’s spending more quality time with her children because of the better pay and guaranteed days off.
“Now with the union, we have a voice,” Pacheco said.
Union strength is fading nationally
These gains come at a time when union membership nationally is at an all-time low, and despite Republican-led efforts over the years to curb union power. About 10% of U.S. workers belonged to a union in 2024, down from 20% in 1983, the first year for which data is available, according to U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics.
President Donald Trump in March signed an executive order seeking to end collective bargaining for certain federal employees that led to union leaders suing the administration. Nevada and more than two dozen other states now have so-called “right to work” laws that let workers opt out of union membership and dues. GOP lawmakers have also supported changes to the National Labor Relations Board and other regulatory bodies, seeking to reduce what they view as overly burdensome rules on businesses.
Ruben Garcia, professor and director of the workplace program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas law school, said the Culinary Union’s resilience stems from its deep roots in Las Vegas, its ability to adapt to the growth and corporatization of the casino industry, and its long history of navigating complex power dynamics with casino owners and operators.
He said the consolidation of casinos on the Las Vegas Strip mirrors the dominance of the Big Three automakers in Detroit. A few powerful companies — MGM Resorts International, Caesars Entertainment and Wynn Resorts — now control most of the dozens of casinos along Las Vegas Boulevard.
“That consolidation can make things harder for workers in some ways, but it also gives unions one large target,” Garcia said.
The latest contracts secured a historic 32% bump in pay over the life of the five-year contract. Union casino workers will earn an average $35 hourly, including benefits, by the end of it.
The union’s influence also extends far beyond the casino floor. With its ability to mobilize thousands of its members for canvassing and voter outreach, the union’s endorsements are highly coveted, particularly among Democrats, and can signal who has the best shot at winning working-class votes.
The union has — and still — faces resistance
The union’s path hasn’t always been smooth though. Michael Green, a history professor at UNLV, noted the Culinary Union has long faced resistance.
“Historically, there have always been people who are anti-union,” Green said.
Earlier this year, two food service workers in Las Vegas filed federal complaints with the National Labor Relations Board, accusing the union of deducting dues despite their objections to union membership. It varies at each casino, but between 95 to 98% of workers opt in to union membership, according to the union.
“I don’t think Culinary Union bosses deserve my support,” said one of the workers, Renee Guerrero, who works at T-Mobile Arena on the Strip. “Their actions since I attempted to exercise my right to stop dues payments only confirms my decision.”
But longtime union members like Paul Anthony see things differently. Anthony, a food server at the Bellagio and a Culinary member for nearly 40 years, said his union benefits — free family health insurance, reliable pay raises, job security and a pension — helped him to build a lasting career in the hospitality industry.
“A lot of times it is an industry that doesn’t have longevity,” he said. But on the Strip, it’s a job that people can do for “20 years, 30 years, 40 years.”
Ted Pappageorge, the union’s secretary-treasurer and lead negotiator, said the union calls this the “Las Vegas dream.”
“It’s always been our goal to make sure that this town is a union town,” he said.
A group of countries that are part of the OPEC+ alliance of oil-exporting countries has agreed to boost oil production, a move some believe could lower oil and gasoline prices, citing a steady global economic outlook and low oil inventories.
The group met virtually on Sunday and announced that eight of its member countries would increase oil production by 547,000 barrels per day in September.
The countries boosting output, including Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria and Oman, had been participating in voluntary production cuts, initially made in November 2023, which were scheduled to be phased out by September 2026. The announcement means the voluntary production cuts will end ahead of schedule.
The move follows an OPEC+ decision in July to boost production by 548,000 barrels per day in August. OPEC said the production adjustments may be paused or reversed as market conditions evolve.
When production increases, oil and gasoline prices may fall. But Brent crude oil, which is considered a global benchmark, has been trading near $70 per barrel, which could be due to a potential loss of Russian oil on the market and a large rise in crude inventories in China, according to research firm Clearview Energy Partners.
“President Trump has not obviously relented from his threat to sanction Russian energy if the Kremlin does not reach a peace deal with Ukraine as of August 7, potentially via “secondary tariffs” on buyers,” Clearview Energy Partners said in an analyst note Sunday.
The eight countries will meet again on Sept. 7, OPEC said in a news release.
In today’s edition: Mark Zuckerberg’s raid on Mira Murati’s startup, the end of the CPB, and the latest woman fired by Trump.
– You’re fired. President Donald Trump was unhappy with July’s U.S. jobs report, which showed hiring slowing (with 73,000 jobs added, compared to 100,000 predicted) and revised past months’ numbers. The Wall Street Journal called the results “surprisingly dismal.” So, on Friday Trump said he would fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erika McEntarfer.
McEntarfer was nominated to lead the BLS in 2023. At the time, it was an overwhelmingly non-controversial appointment. She was confirmed 86-8 in a bipartisan vote.
She’s a longtime labor economist with more than 20 years experience in the federal government, who had worked at the Census Bureau’s Center for Economic Studies, the Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Policy and the White House Council of Economic Advisers in a nonpolitical role. Her research focused on job loss, retirement, worker mobility, and wage rigidity, according to the AP.
Trump accused McEntarfer of manipulating jobs data and said that the data was “being produced by a Biden appointee.” “She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified. Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can’t be manipulated for political purposes,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
The BLS produces data relied on by businesses and policymakers, including the Fed.
McEntarfer joins a growing list of female officials fired during Trump 2.0 (and lot of fired men, too). There was Admiral Linda Fagan, the leader of the Coast Guard and the first woman to lead a military branch who was removed on Trump’s second day back on the job. Gwynne Wilcox, who Trump attempted to dismiss from the National Labor Relations Board (she sued, and a back-and-forth over her dismissal reached the Supreme Court). Federal Elections Committee (FEC) chair Ellen Weintraub was let go. Phyllis Fong, inspector general of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, refused to comply with her firing in January and was escorted out by security. Carla Hayden, the Librarian of Congress, was fired via email.
McEntarfer’s colleagues have jumped to her defense. Her predecessor William Beach, who was appointed by Trump in 2019 and served until 2023, said that the “groundless” firing “sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the statistical mission of the Bureau.” Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said there was “no conceivable way” the numbers could have been manipulated, relying as they do on strict processes and hundreds of staffers. Janet Yellen said that the firing of the head of the bureau charged with accurately reporting economic data “is the kind of thing you would only expect to see in a banana republic.”
McEntarfer’s firing is part of a bigger plan for the BLS, the Journal reports. “The president wants his own people there, so that when we see the jobs numbers, they are more transparent and more reliable,” National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett said.
McEntarfer responded to her firing in a post on Bluesky. “It has been the honor of my life to serve as Commissioner of BLS alongside the many dedicated civil servants tasked with measuring a vast and dynamic economy,” she wrote. “It is vital and important work and I thank them for their service to this nation.”
On Sunday, Trump officials homed in on the revised May and June numbers as the reason for McEntarfer’s firing. “I think what we need is a fresh set of eyes at the BLS, somebody who can clean this thing up,” Hassett said.
Marvel’s first family stumbled in theaters in its second weekend, but still held on to the top spot at the box office.
“The Fantastic Four: First Steps” earned $40 million from 4,125 North American theaters, a 66% drop from a healthy $117.6 million debut. The film was accompanied by comedies “The Bad Guys 2” and “The Naked Gun” in the top three box office rankings.
The superhero movie dipped significantly more than Marvel’s previous film, “Thunderbolts,” which took a 55% dive in its second weekend.
“First Steps” is the last major blockbuster of the summer. It added nearly $40 million internationally in its second weekend, bringing the film’s global total to $369 million. The movie’s box office drop off was surprising given its strong reviews, said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst for the data firm Comscore.
Though the movie’s debut weekend may have given box office results a strong push toward the $4 billion summer benchmark, August is off to a slow start, he said.
“It’s a tough lift, but we might be able to get there. It really means that all the films are gonna have to stand on their own,” Dergarabedian said. “It’s gonna be about getting great reviews, having that staying power, that longevity in the marketplace.”
Newcomer comedy “The Bad Guys 2” earned second place at the box office this weekend, with $22 million from 3,852 North American theaters. That was on par with projections and also in line with the first movie in the series, which brought in $23 million in 2022. Paramount’s slapstick comedy, “The Naked Gun,” also in its debut weekend, snagged the third box office spot, earning $17 million from 3,344 locations.
Jim Orr, president of domestic distribution for Universal Pictures, said the solid debut for “The Bad Guys 2,” coupled with strong audience reaction scores, “should point to a very long, very successful run through not only the rest of the summer, but really, I think into the fall.”
James Gunn’s “Superman,” which opened four weekends ago and already crossed $550 million globally, earned $13.8 million domestically this weekend, taking the fourth spot. “Jurassic World Rebirth” followed with $8.7 million.
The horror movie “Together” had a strong debut weekend, coming in at sixth place and earning $6.8 million domestically, proof that August is a month for edgier and off-beat films, Dergarabedian said.
“That’s what this month is about. It’s not just about box office,” Dergarabedian said. “It’s also about providing really interesting, rewarding movie-going experiences for audiences.”
Dergarabedian said he expects highly-anticipated movies hitting theaters in the next few weeks — including “Freakier Friday,” and Zach Cregger’s horror movie “Weapons” — to give August a needed boost.
The box office is currently up 9.5% from last year.
Top 10 movies by domestic box office
With final domestic figures being released Monday, this list factors in the estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at U.S. and Canadian theaters, according to Comscore:
1. “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” $40 million.
2. “The Bad Guys 2,” $22.2 million.
3. “The Naked Gun,” $17 million.
4. “Superman,” $13.8 million.
5. “Jurassic World Rebirth,” $8.7 million.
6. “Together,” $6.8 million.
7. “F1: The Movie,” $4.1 million.
8. “I Know What You Did Last Summer,” $2.7 million.
Saying “enough is enough,” thousands of workers at three Boeing manufacturing plants went on strike overnight less than a year after the company boosted wages to end a separate, 53-day strike by 33,000 aircraft workers.
On Monday, about 3,200 workers at Boeing facilities in St. Louis; St. Charles, Missouri; and Mascoutah, Illinois, voted to reject a modified four-year labor agreement with Boeing, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union said Sunday.
In a post on X, the union said: “3,200 highly-skilled IAM Union members at Boeing went on strike at midnight because enough is enough.”
“IAM District 837 members build the aircraft and defense systems that keep our country safe,” said Sam Cicinelli, Midwest territory general vice president for the union, in a statement. “They deserve nothing less than a contract that keeps their families secure and recognizes their unmatched expertise.”
The union members rejected the latest proposal after a weeklong cooling-off period.
Boeing warned over the weekend that it anticipated the strike after workers rejected its most recent offer that included a 20% wage hike over four years.
“We’re disappointed our employees rejected an offer that featured 40% average wage growth and resolved their primary issue on alternative work schedules,” said Dan Gillian, Boeing Air Dominance vice president and general manager, and senior St. Louis site executive. “We are prepared for a strike and have fully implemented our contingency plan to ensure our non-striking workforce can continue supporting our customers.”
Last week, Boeing reported that its second-quarter revenue had improved and losses had narrowed. The company lost $611 million in the second quarter, compared to a loss of $1.44 billion during the same period last year.
Shares of Boeing Co. slipped less than 1% before the opening bell Monday.
Tesla is awarding CEO Elon Musk 96 million shares of restricted stock valued at approximately $29 billion, just six months after a judge ordered the company to revoke his massive pay package.
The electric vehicle maker said in a regulatory filing on Monday that Musk must first pay Tesla $23.34 per share of restricted stock that vests, which is equal to the exercise price per share of the 2018 pay package that was awarded to the company’s CEO.
In December Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick reaffirmed her earlier ruling that Tesla must revoke Musk’s multibillion-dollar pay package. She found that Musk engineered the landmark pay package in sham negotiations with directors who were not independent.
At the time McCormick also rejected an equally unprecedented and massive fee request by plaintiff attorneys, who argued that they were entitled to legal fees in the form of Tesla stock valued at more than $5 billion. The judge said the attorneys were entitled to a fee award of $345 million.
The rulings came in a lawsuit filed by a Tesla stockholder who challenged Musk’s 2018 compensation package.
That pay package carried a potential maximum value of about $56 billion, but that sum has fluctuated over the years based on Tesla’s stock price.
Musk appealed the order in March. A month later Tesla said in a regulatory filing that it was creating a special committee to look at Musk’s compensation as CEO.
Tesla shares have plunged 25% this year, largely due to blowback over Musk’s affiliation with President Donald Trump. But Tesla also faces intensifying competition from both the big Detroit automakers, and from China.
In its most recent quarter, Tesla reported that quarterly profits plunged from $1.39 billion to $409 million. Revenue also fell and the company fell short of even the lowered expectations on Wall Street.
Under pressure from shareholders last month, Tesla scheduled an annual shareholders meeting for November to comply with Texas state law.
A group of more than 20 Tesla shareholders, which have watched Tesla shares plummet, said in a letter to the company that it needed to at least provide public notice of the annual meeting.
Investors have grown increasingly worried about the trajection of the company after Musk had spent so much time in Washington this year, becoming one of the most prominent officials in the Trump administration in its bid to slash the size of the U.S. government.
Russia’s space chief has visited the United States to discuss plans for continued cooperation between Moscow and Washington on the International Space Station and lunar research with NASA’s acting chief, the first such face-to-face meeting in more than seven years.
Dmitry Bakanov, the director of the state space corporation Roscosmos, met Thursday with NASA’s new acting administrator, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, on a visit to attend the planned launch of a U.S.-Japanese-Russian crew to the space station. The launch was delayed by weather until Friday, when it blasted off successfully.
Roscosmos said Bakanov and Duffy discussed “further work on the International Space Station, cooperation on lunar programs, joint exploration of deep space and continued cooperation on other space projects.”
Once bitter rivals in the space race during the Cold War, Roscosmos and NASA cooperated on the space station and other projects. That relationship was beset with tensions after Moscow sent troops into Ukraine in 2022, but Washington and Moscow have continued to work together, with U.S. and Russian crews continuing to fly to the orbiting outpost on each country’s spacecraft.
Plans for broader cooperation, including possible Russian involvement in NASA’s Artemis program of lunar research, have fallen apart.
As Russia has become increasingly reliant on China for its energy exports and imports of key technology amid Western sanctions, Roscosmos has started cooperation with China on its prospective lunar mission.
Speaking to Russian reporters after the talks with Duffy, Bakanov said that they agreed to keep working on keeping the space station in operation to the end of the decade.
“Our experts will now start working on those issues in details,” Bakanov said, praising Duffy for giving a green light for those contacts “despite geopolitical tensions.”
The Russian space chief added that he and Duffy will report the results of the meeting to Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump to secure their blessing for potential space cooperation.
“In view of the difficult geopolitical situation, we will need to receive the necessary clearance from the leaders of our countries,” Bakanov said.
He added he invited Duffy to visit Moscow and the Russia-leased Baikonur launch facility in Kazakhstan for the launch of another Russia-U.S. crew to the space station scheduled for November.
“I will put my efforts into keeping the channel of cooperation between Russia and the U.S. open, and I expect NASA to do the same,” Bakanov said.
The Senate has confirmed former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro as the top federal prosecutor for the nation’s capital, filling the post after President Donald Trump withdrew his controversial first pick, conservative activist Ed Martin Jr.
Pirro, a former county prosecutor and elected judge, was confirmed 50-45. Before becoming the acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia in May, she co-hosted the Fox News show “The Five” on weekday evenings, where she frequently interviewed Trump.
Trump yanked Martin’s nomination after a key Republican senator said he could not support him due to Martin’s outspoken support for rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Martin now serves as the Justice Department’s pardon attorney.
In 2021, voting technology company Smartmatic USA sued Fox News, Pirro and others for spreading false claims that the company helped “steal” the 2020 presidential election from Trump. The company’s libel suit, filed in a New York state court, sought $2.7 billion from the defendants.
Last month, Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to send Pirro’s nomination to the Senate floor after Democrats walked out to protest Emil Bove’s nomination to become a federal appeals court judge.
Pirro, a 1975 graduate of Albany Law School, has significantly more courtroom experience than Martin, who had never served as a prosecutor or tried a case before taking office in January. She was elected as a judge in New York’s Westchester County Court in 1990 before serving three terms as the county’s elected district attorney.
In the final minutes of his first term as president, Trump issued a pardon to Pirro’s ex-husband, Albert Pirro, who was convicted in 2000 on conspiracy and tax evasion charges.
Login
