Insider Legacy Secret
Author

admin

Browsing
In Economy

Will Adam Smith’s ‘Impartial Spectator’ Soften Trump’s Hardest Foreign-Policy Edges?

No Comments

The list of Trump administration foreign-policy moves in recent weeks is long. It conducted an attack on Venezuela, brought President Nicolas Madura and his wife Cilia Flores to stand trial in New York for illegal drug smuggling and secured sway over massive petroleum reserves. Along with this far-reaching action, Trump pursued control of Greenland “one way or another” and said that Cubans should prepare for collapse, Colombia and Mexico should tread lightly and Iran should expect “very strong action” if protestors there are executed.

Asked in an interview if there were any constraints limiting what he might do on the world stage, Trump replied: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.” He added “I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people.”

Some Trump critics — no matter how shocked or opposed to his actions they are— may be welcoming the thought that he, like most of the rest of us, is thinking about conscience and how it affects behavior. By no means does this ensure peaceful outcomes, but it’s not unreasonable to think that it makes those outcomes more likely.

Conscience is a virtue; acting on it is also a tool of self-interest. As moral philosopher and economist Adam Smith proposed in his 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments, we are each equipped with an “impartial spectator” — a “man within the breast” — who observes and affects our actions. Smith argued implicitly that this helps form an invisible hand, similar to that of the free market, which enables self-interested people to become more moral creatures.

The mental process Smith described, similar to what Sigmund Freud termed the “super ego,” chastens what might otherwise be driven by greed, jealousy, an insatiable desire for power and other less divine appetites. Smith’s spectator develops from social interactions that result from the human tendency to desire respect, welcome the larger community’s praise and, for politicians, to keep their base aligned. These form habits of the heart that lead us toward long-term gains in social settings.

Smith more famously explained how self-interest enables the most efficient allocation of society’s resources. Describing human action in a world where force and coercion are not an option, he remarked that it was not from “the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest” as they earn customers through superior products and pricing.

When there is competition (or even the threat of competition) in our commercial dealings, each person’s self-interest balanced against that of others can have a positive effect on overall human wellbeing; indeed, it’s a necessary part of freedom’s machinery that delivers a happy outcome.

But what about the world of international politics, where force and coercion are part of the equation? Can the competing self-interests of surging and receding world leaders still lead to a balance that serves the whole? Can such a process be chastened by the “man within the breast”?

Trump’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, suggests that this is no time to rely on “niceties” to do the right thing: “We live in a world … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”

As certain as Miller sounds, there is another reality to acknowledge: competition has its role to play. Yes, the United States has the power to forcibly remove a leader in Venezuela and to secure a different relationship with Greenland. But we are not the only game in town to partner with. There are other world powers — small and large — which have something to offer these nations, and to us for that matter.

We are seeing this competition unfold now as Canada signals an end to a long-term special U.S. friendship and discusses trade deals with India and China. We see it as Denmark moves to strengthen NATO after enduring the president’s threats to take over Greenland.

Though there are many things at play, the incentive still exists for powerful nations and their leaders to heed the impartial spectator, encourage trade and seek a more harmonious world.

by
Read More
In Economy

Free Speech Is Under Attack Across the World

No Comments

For the past few years, the world has been falling into what Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)’s Matthew Harwood calls a “free speech recession.”

It’s tempting for those of us who grew up in a robust culture of free speech to think that the problem is just limited to authoritarian regimes like China and Iran and Russia. But unfortunately the problem runs much deeper. Many developed countries, including countries that pride themselves on their democracy and international respectability, are deciding that they ought to have the power to imprison citizens who say anything that these countries’ leaders disagree with.

In the United Kingdom, for instance, police approached Gideon Falter, who was walking near a pro-Palestinian march dressed in a kippah, and told him that if he didn’t leave he would be arrested for breaching the peace. What was Falter’s crime? Police told him that he appeared “quite openly Jewish,” and as such his appearance might provoke the nearby protestors.

Last year (and also in the United Kingdom), Iraq war veteran Jamie Michael was arrested and spent 20 days in jail for a Facebook video. After seeing stories about the brutal murder of three children by a second-generation United Kingdom immigrant, Michael had argued in the video that his community was “under attack” by “scumbags” and “psychopaths.” He was promptly arrested for what police termed “dehumanizing language.”

It’s not just Falter and Michaels. In 2023 alone, the United Kingdom made over 12,000 arrests for online speech. Thousands of people have had to pay exorbitant fines or else languished in jail because they had the nerve to express an opinion that ran contrary to the will of police and elected officials.

It’s also not just the United Kingdom. 

In Germany, American satirist CJ Hopkins was prosecuted for tweeting that the facemasks required by many governments during the COVID-19 pandemic were just “symbols of ideological conformity” (quote translated from German). 

Also in Germany, after a 15-year-old girl was gang-raped by nine perpetrators, a woman in Hamburg sent one of the convicted rapists messages on WhatsApp calling him a “disgusting rapist pig.” The rapist complained, and the woman who messaged him was sentenced to a weekend in jail. She’s hardly the only one: Hamburg authorities investigated an astounding 140 suspects for insulting or threatening the rapists.

Many European countries have passed laws against so-called hate speech on the grounds that such laws are essential to protect the dignity of minority communities. Apparently that now includes tiptoeing around the feelings of convicted rapists.

Earlier this month, ten Parisians were found guilty of cyber-harassment of France’s first lady, Brigitte Macron. The perpetrators, eight men and two women, accused Macron of being transgender, and equated her age difference with her husband (Brigitte is 24 years younger than husband Immanuel) to “paedophilia.” For that, the ten Parisians were given fines and jail sentences ranging up to eight months.

I’m sure that being accused of being born male hurt the first lady. But do such online comments really warrant eight months in jail?

Unfortunately, the list goes on. 

In Norway, lesbian filmmaker Tonje Gjevjon was prosecuted after she argued on Facebook that biological males cannot be lesbians. Gjevjon was never convicted, but as FIRE president Greg Lukianoff writes, “the process is the punishment.” Being dragged through the courts for making a common-sense statement threatened to chill the speech of Gjevjon and of anyone else who might challenge the prevailing orthodoxy.

In Finland, Päivi Räsänen criticized the Evangelical Lutheran church leadership because it supported Helsinki Pride, and posted a photo of Romans 1:24-27 (which condemns homosexual relations). Police charged her with “agitation against a minority group.” They even charged the Lutheran Bishop who co-published a pamphlet she wrote arguing that gay marriage is sinful.

In Switzerland, Emanuel Brünisholz posted on Facebook that, “If you dig up LGBTQI people after 200 years, you’ll only find men and women based on their skeletons. Everything else is a mental illness promoted through the curriculum.” For this allegedly hateful comment, he was forced to pay a fine of 500 Swiss francs. Brünisholz refused to pay on principle, and instead will serve 10 days in jail.

Such censorship is even making its way to the United States.

On January 12 of this year, Raquel Pacheco received a visit from police over a Facebook comment she made criticizing Miami Mayor Steven Meiner. After Meiner posted that, “Miami Beach is a safe haven for everyone. We will always stand firm against any discrimination,” Pacheco replied with, “‘We will stand firm against any discrimination’ — unless you’re Palestinian, or Muslim or you think those people have a right to live” and “Careful your racism is showing.”

Public officials ought to have thick enough skins to brush off the occasional rude comment. But instead, Pacheco found herself investigated and intimidated; as one policeman told her, “I would think to refrain from posting things like that, because that can get something incited.”

Meiner’s response is even more chilling. In a statement following the police visit, he wrote that “In this situation, our police department believed that inflammatory language that is false and without any factual basis was justification for follow-up to assess the level of threat and to protect the safety of all involved.”

Meiner’s statement displays a shocking disregard for the First Amendment. While true threats are not protected speech, Pacheco’s fiery comment falls far short of that standard. And there is no First Amendment exception for speech that a public official claims is false.

It’s not just Meiner who’s willfully ignoring the freedoms our forefathers fought and died for. 

In response to widespread ICE raids, a new app called ICEBlock enables users to report sightings of ICE officers. The app serves a clear democratic purpose in a country in which citizens often film interactions between law enforcement and ordinary people, and even explicitly warns its users not to use it “for the purposes of inciting violence or interfering with law enforcement.”

Nonetheless, the Trump administration threw a fit at the mere existence of the app. The administration claims that the app puts ICE agents in danger, and threatened to prosecute the app’s developer. Even more chilling, the administration is actively trying to prosecute CNN for writing about the app. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced that her agency is “working with the Department of Justice” to see if they could prosecute the news network.

Prosecuting a news network for writing about an app might be a new low, but it’s far from the only time the Trump administration has blatantly disregarded the First Amendment. Last year, when Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez published flyers and a webinar reminding people of their constitutional rights when it came to interactions with ICE, border czar Tom Homan asked the Department of Justice to investigate her for “impeding our law enforcement efforts.” Given that a Congresswoman reminding constituents of their rights is hardly illegal, it’s tough not to see this as naked political persecution.

Supporters of hate speech laws often couch their support in terms of wanting to protect the dignity of marginalized communities from hateful comments. That’s a worthy goal, but again and again, we see that it doesn’t work out that way in practice. Instead, governments wield the powers granted to them by hate speech laws in order to punish dissent, shut down conversation, and prosecute political opponents.

If we really care about the rights of marginalized people, perhaps it’s time to stand up for the free speech rights of the ordinary citizens who dare to make statements that politicians and law enforcement don’t agree with.

by
Read More
In Economy

Certificate-of-Need Laws Still Fail Patients — Even After a Decade of Reform

No Comments

About 10 years ago, economist Matthew Mitchell and the Mercatus Center published a short video titled “The Wrath of CON: How Certificate-of-Need Laws Affect Access to Health Care.” The video described certificate-of-need (CON) laws, an obscure niche in healthcare policy known best by a handful of policy wonks and healthcare professionals, and the barriers CON laws create.

Under the video’s humor lay a dark truth: CON laws hurt patients and providers at their outset and the laws’ continued existence compounds that harm. Repealing CON laws can help improve access and affordability in healthcare.

Fortunately, over the past decade, many states have moved to reform or repeal their respective CON laws. However, there is still much progress to be made. Mitchell’s 2024 paper, “Certificate of Need Laws in Health Care: Past, Present, and Future” and a 2025 review of academic literature from economists Charles J. Courtemanche and Joseph Garuccio provide updates on CON laws and guidance for future research and policy.

What is CON?

Certificate-of-Need (CON) laws require the approval of states’ health planning agencies for health care providers to engage in regulated actions such as opening or expanding facilities or purchasing equipment. Additionally, in many states with CON regulations, the decision to grant a CON is made by a board whose members may work for incumbent providers. This is sometimes referred to as a “competitor’s veto.” Mitchell also notes that in all but six CON states, incumbent providers are allowed to participate in the process and object to the application of a would-be competitor and often use the objection as leverage against the potential competitor from encroaching on their territory. Mitchell calls it “a type of territorial collusion that would be a per se violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act were it not facilitated by the state.”

CON laws were first applied to healthcare by New York State in 1964, and by 1970, 25 additional states had similar regulations. In 1974, Congress passed the National Health Planning and Resources Development Act (NHPRDA), where the federal government threatened states into adopting CON regulations by saying they would withhold federal funding for healthcare for any state without CON laws. 

The desire to push CON came from a misguided belief that such regulations could, in Mithcell’s words, “cause hospitals to acquire fewer beds, fill them with fewer patients, and therefore spend less money.”

The threats to withhold federal funding never materialized, but by the early 1980s every state had a CON program for healthcare. As Medicare reimbursement switched from retrospective (hospitals get paid whatever they spend with little incentive to control costs) to prospective reimbursement (hospitals are paid a fixed, predetermined amount for services), CON policies were reexamined. 

Finding that CON laws did little to control costs, especially under prospective reimbursement, policymakers in DC rolled back CON requirements. While the federal CON requirements were repealed, most states maintained CON regulations, which led to greater variation among state CON regulations. By 1990, eleven states had followed suit and repealed CON laws, with only Wisconsin reinstating the program. By 2000, Indiana, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania had repealed most CON laws. 2000 Wisconsin has since re-repealed its CON regulations. In 2016, New Hampshire was the last state to fully repeal CON.

In their 2025 review of the academic literature on CON, Courtemanche and Garuccio find “in at least some cases, CON laws restrict both entry of new competitors and expansion of existing hospitals. The reduction in competitors increases the number of procedures in hospitals.” They continue by noting such findings provide

“[L]ittle evidence that this translates to increased prices or higher hospital profitability, and hardly any research tests for reduced closure rates. Studies on hospital efficiency and quality of care for procedures performed exclusively at hospitals mostly point to null or negative effects, but evidence on quality is more favorable for services that can be provided outside of hospitals.”

While there may be other factors at play (such as government subsidies, the Affordable Care Act implementation, or the variation of CON laws among states), costs can still be passed onto patients without changing prices. Higher costs may look like longer wait times (whether in a hospital or fewer scheduling options), staffing shortages, or the opportunity cost of patients traveling to see a specialist either on the other side of their state or in other states.

If one thing is clear, CON regulations have failed to deliver on the promise of affordable and accessible healthcare.

Mitchell’s Findings on State Experiments with CON Reform

As of December 2025, 15 states have fully repealed CON regulations. Additionally, numerous states have reformed their CON regulations to shrink the healthcare services that require a CON. Mitchell’s map is reprinted as Figure 1 and table is reprinted as Table 1.

 Figure 1. Number of Health Care Services in Which a CON is Required (2023)

Reprinted from Mitchell MD. Certificate of Need Laws in Health Care: Past, Present, and Future. Inquiry. 2024 Jan-Dec;61.
Reprinted from Mitchell MD. Certificate of Need Laws in Health Care: Past, Present, and Future. Inquiry. 2024 Jan-Dec;61.

Figure 1 summarizes the number of health care services subject to CON regulation while Table 1 identifies the services most commonly regulated. Arizona, Minnesota, and New Mexico limit CON requirements to ambulatory services while Indiana, Ohio, and South Carolina (as of 2025) only apply CONs to nursing homes. Hawaii regulates the most activities, requiring CON approval for 28 services and technologies. Mitchell finds that nursing home beds are the most frequently regulated, followed by psychiatric services, new hospitals, and intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities. Investment thresholds triggering CON review vary from state to state and are generally lower for non-hospital providers (a $3 million expenditure trigger for ambulatory services in Maine) than for hospitals (excess of $12.365 million in capital expenditures in Maine).

From Mitchell’s findings and his survey of the academic literature, he finds that CON laws are generally associated with high variable costs in general acute hospitals, fewer available hospitals, higher Medicaid costs for at-home care and long-term care, and higher health expenditures. The more stringent and numerous the CON laws in the state, the worse access and affordability for healthcare.

In states that did repeal CON laws, Mitchell found that hospital charges in states without CON are 5.5 percent lower five years after CON repeal. Additionally, safety-net hospitals in states without CON had higher margins than similar hospitals in states with regulation. While repealing or reforming CON will not fix all healthcare policy challenges, doing so can help increase affordability and healthcare access.

What Comes Next?

As Mitchell’s map shows, many states have the opportunity to reform and repeal CON to their betterment. States such as West Virginia (one of the most stringent CON states) have residents that seek healthcare in neighboring states like Pennsylvania (0 CON regulations) because there is greater access to care outside of the state.

To this end, there are a myriad of options for CON reform. Aside from a full immediate repeal or a regulatory sunset provision, state policymakers can also eliminate the competitor’s veto. 

Preventing incumbent providers from participating in the CON review process (including requesting hearings and appeals) can help reduce cronyism in the CON application process. Increasing transparency in the CON application process and CON laws can also help reduce cronyism as well.

Americans are strained by the cost of healthcare. Reforming CON laws can help alleviate some of that strain. A full repeal can provide even greater help.

by
Read More
In Investing

Japan Advances Rare Earths Ambitions with World’s First Seabed Trial

No Comments

Japan announced that it has successfully retrieved mineral-rich seabed sediment from nearly 6,000 meters below the ocean’s surface near the remote island of Minamitorishima.

Officials say the technical milestone could help reduce the country’s dependence on China.

The work was carried out by deep-sea drilling vessel Chikyu, which collected the sediment as part of a government-backed test program aimed at assessing the feasibility of mining rare-earths-bearing mud from the deep ocean.

According to Japan’s Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Chikyu departed last month for Minamitorishima — about 1,950 kilometers southeast of Tokyo — and arrived at the test site on January 17.

The first batch of sediment was recovered on February 1.

“It is a first step toward industrialization of domestically produced rare earth in Japan,” Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi said in a statement posted on X. “We will make efforts toward achieving resilient supply chains for rare earths and other critical minerals to avoid overdependence on a particular country.”

Rare earths are essential in the high-performance magnets used in electric vehicles, wind turbines, electronics and defense systems. China currently dominates global production and processing of heavy rare earths, giving Beijing significant influence over prices and supply, a vulnerability that has increasingly worried world governments.

Japan’s latest test comes amid heightened geopolitical tension in the region.

Tokyo has grown more concerned about potential supply disruptions after China recently suspended exports of certain dual-use goods to Japan. While rare earths were not explicitly named, the move raised fears that Beijing could use its control over critical minerals as leverage as it has in the past.

Japanese researchers first identified rare-earth-rich mud deposits around Minamitorishima in the 2010s. Since then, the government has funded research, development and feasibility studies under its Strategic Innovation Promotion Program, focusing on whether those resources could support a domestic supply chain.

The current trial is designed to test not only the ability to retrieve sediment from extreme depths, but also the logistics of deep-sea mining. Officials cautioned that the work is still at an early stage. Details such as the concentration of rare earth elements in the retrieved mud and the overall recovery rates are still being analyzed. Moving toward commercial production would require demonstrating the entire process, from seabed extraction to separation and refining.

Japan plans to continue testing through mid-February. If the trials are successful, larger-scale demonstrations could follow, potentially including the construction of a dedicated processing facility on Minamitorishima later this decade.

US targets rare earths security with Project Vault

While Japan pushes deeper into rare earths supply diversification, developments in the US underscore how deeply critical minerals policies are shaping markets on both sides of the Pacific.

On Monday (February 2), the Trump administration rolled out Project Vault, a roughly US$12 billion strategic critical minerals reserve aimed at reducing US dependence on China for rare earths and other essential metals.

The initiative, anchored by a US$10 billion loan from the US Export‑Import Bank and about US$2 billion in private capital, is designed to stockpile strategic materials like rare earths, cobalt and lithium.

The program’s backers say the reserve will function much like America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve, offering a buffer against global supply disruptions and insulating manufacturers from price shocks that have plagued markets during recent US-China trade tensions. Analysts say the effort signals an ongoing shift toward industrial policy that treats critical minerals as strategic assets, even as completion details and long‑term execution remain uncertain.

The financial markets responded quickly. Shares of Australian rare earths producer Lynas Rare Earths (ASX:LYC,OTCQX:LYSDY) rallied more than 3 percent on Tuesday (February 3), closing at AU$15.25, reflecting renewed investor interest tied to the policy news and the broader rare earth narrative.

Lynas’ recent movements come against a backdrop of broader gains in non‑Chinese mineral producers, as investors reposition around supply chain security and government policy support.

Rare earths stocks more generally saw upticks in the US market after the country’s critical minerals plan came into focus, with producers like MP Materials (NYSE:MP) and USA Rare Earth (NASDAQ:USAR) gaining on reports of increased government engagement in critical mineral sourcing.

Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Investing

Can You Invest in Neuralink?

No Comments

Elon Musk’s Neuralink has captured the public’s attention and imagination with its futuristic vision of connecting the human brain to computers.

Neuralink has drawn interest to the brain computer interface (BCI) sector with its N1 implant, which is undergoing human trials in patients with spinal cord injuries (SCIs) and ALS.

Musk’s company is far from the only one developing BCI tech to assist users with conditions such as SCIs, ALS and neurological disorders.

‘The number of new firms entering the space and the amount of venture funding being distributed to startups surpasses any other product category we have seen in the 25 years we have been covering the neurotechnology industry,’ Neurotech Reports stated in June 2025.

As Neuralink continues to make strides, investors are wondering how to get a piece of the action by investing in the neurotechnology venture.

Because it is privately held, Neuralink stock isn’t accessible to the average person — but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible to get exposure to this future-looking medical research company. Read on to learn how to participate in the growth of this exciting business, and other BCI firms you can invest in.

In this article

    What is Neuralink?

    Neuralink is a neurotechnology startup that was founded in 2016 by Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) CEO Musk and a team of eight scientists and engineers in 2016.

    It was first reported on in 2017, and two years later, in June 2019, the company held and streamed its public launch event to showcase the technology it is developing: an innovative brain-computer interface.

    Instead of using traditional electrodes, which, according to a company whitepaper, can be bulky and damaging to brain tissue, Neuralink’s BCI uses “ultra-thin threads” that are implanted into the brain using a robotic device that resembles a sewing machine. Once implanted, the electrodes develop a BCI, stimulating the brain and monitoring activity, and the threads connect to a custom-designed chip that can read data from groups of neurons.

    Musk announced the coin-sized Telepathy chip, with over 1,000 electrodes 20 times finer than hair, in January 2024.

    Potential uses of BCI technology include helping paralyzed individuals regain control of their limbs and restoring vision. Musk told his audience during Neuralink’s 2019 launch event that this technology could have a wide range of applications in medicine, such as restoring sensory and motor function in people with spinal cord injuries or neurological disorders. Additionally, an early goal of development is translating neuron signals into computer commands, which would allow humans to control devices like computers and smartphones with their brainwaves.

    Musk has claimed that BCI could even facilitate direct communication between humans and machines, although some members of the neuroscientific community are skeptical.

    Other experts have suggested that Neuralink’s work is not necessarily novel, as Dr. Jason Shepherd, an associate professor of neurobiology at the University of Utah, told Business Insider in 2020. “All the technology that he showed has been already developed in some way or form,’ he said. ‘Essentially, what they’ve done is just package it into a nice little form that then sends data wirelessly.”

    Other experts in the field have ethical concerns about how Neuralink is conducting its clinical trials and the broader implications of disregarding established standards.

    “If you decide to play with fire in a house, you increase the risk threshold not only of yourself but of the whole house,” Marcello Ienca, a professor of ethics of AI and neuroscience at Technical University of Munich, told Forbes in 2024. “My fear is that Neuralink’s disregard for the ethical aspects of their technology may cause a backfire effect for the entire neurotechnology community.”

    How much is Neuralink worth?

    Neuralink was valued at around US$9.7 billion as of June 2025, but as a privately held business, much of its financial information is kept under wraps. That said, US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) documents containing information about its funding rounds provide some insight.

    The earliest came in 2017, when the company raised US$27 million out of a planned US$100 million in a Series A funding round. In April 2019, SEC filings show the company acquired US$39 million out of a planned US$51 million in a Series B funding round. A limited amount of information has been made available to the public, and the identities of the investors have not been publicly disclosed. However, some news outlets have speculated that funding could have come from a combination of venture capitalists, or from Musk himself and the Neuralink team.

    In 2021, Neuralink received what was then its largest amount of money to date, raising US$205 million in a funding round led by tech investment firm Vy Capital. Other participants included Google Ventures, the venture capital arm of Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL); OpenAI CEO Sam Altman; Fred Ehrsam, co-founder of Paradigm and Coinbase Global (NASDAQ:COIN); and Ken Howery, co-founder of PayPal Holdings (NASDAQ:PYPL) and Founders Fund.

    In May 2023, as Neuralink faced public backlash over accusations of animal mistreatment, it received clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to run the first human trial of its brain implant. Just months later, in August, Neuralink closed a US$280 million funding round led by Founders Fund. The filing was amended in November 2023 to reflect an additional US$43 million, bringing the total to US$323 million.

    Most recently, the company announced the closure of a US$650 million Series E funding round in June 2025.

    Is Neuralink approved for human trials?

    In May 2023, Neuralink received clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to run the first human trials of its brain implant. The company opened a patient registry in early 2023 that allowed people who had at least one of a qualifying list of conditions to volunteer for upcoming clinical trials. It is also approved for human trials in Canada, Great Britain and the UAE.

    The first US study, dubbed PRIME — Precise Robotically Implanted Brain-Computer Interface — is specifically focused on patients with cervical spinal cord injuries or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). It has an estimated primary completion date of January 2026 and is estimated to be fully completed by January 2031.

    The study’s first participant, a patient with quadriplegia, received the implant on January 28, 2024; Musk reported a quick recovery and ‘promising neuron spike detection’ the following day.

    A month later, Musk said the patient, who is named Noland Arbaugh, could control a cursor mentally. Arbaugh shared 100-day positives in May 2024, calling it a success over prior tech. One of the largest benefits is that it allows him to operate his computer and other devices lying down, while he needed assistance for setup and repositioning with prior devices. He explained that the change gives him more freedom to live on his own time.

    The study’s next two participants were a patient who became paralyzed following a spinal cord injury from a diving accident and another who lost use of his limbs to ALS. The company issued an update on their progress in February 2025, with all three patients touting positive changes following the procedure.

    As of January 2026, Neuralink has now implanted devices in 21 trial participants across the US, Canada, the UK and the UAE.

    The UAE-PRIME trial began recruiting in May 2025 via the Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, while the GB-PRIME study launched in Great Britain two months later.

    Neuralink is also conducting the CONVOY study in the US, announced in November 2024, testing the use of the implant to control an investigational assistive robotic arm. It is open to participants of the PRIME study.

    Meanwhile, the company received FDA breakthrough device designation for Blindsight, a capability being developed to generate visual perception by activating brain areas responsible for visual function, as well as for its speech restoration technology, in 2024 and 2025, respectively. Blindsight trials aimed at restoring vision for the blind are reportedly planned to begin soon in the UAE.

    Looking ahead, Musk says the company will begin high-volume chip production in 2026. In a January update, Neuralink shared plans to improve the implant, including raising electrodes from 1,000 to 3,000. It is also investigating a change to the surgical procedure that would reduce invasiveness by inserting the implant’s threads through the dura mater, the brain’s tough outer membrane.

    How to invest in Neuralink?

    With Neuralink continuing to move forward, how can investors get a piece of this up-and-coming technology?

    The firm has yet to go public, so purchasing Neuralink stock is not an option for many investors. However, there are still ways for investors to potentially profit from Neuralink’s growth before it goes public.

    The vast majority of Neuralink’s funding has come from venture capitalists and a handful of billion-dollar companies. Investors can gain indirect exposure to Neuralink before its IPO by buying publicly traded companies that have invested in the company. This includes Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL), which has funded Neuralink via its subsidiary Google Ventures. This strategy captures potential upside from Neuralink’s growth.

    Those who qualify as accredited investors could also potentially invest in a Neuralink funding round. According to the SEC, an accredited investor must have a net worth of at least US$1 million, not including the value of their primary residence, or an annual income of at least US$200,000 for individuals and US$300,000 for married couples. There must also be a reasonable expectation of the same level of income in the year of filing.

    Individuals can also qualify as accredited investors if they are investment professionals in good standing. In that case, the SEC’s guidelines indicate that they need to hold either a general securities representative license, an investment advisor representative license or a private securities offerings representative license.

    Entities like banks, insurance companies or investment firms with total assets of at least US$5 million may also qualify as accredited investors. Certain types of entities, such as private business companies and small business investment companies, may be exempt from the standard asset value requirements for accredited investor status.

    It’s also worth noting that Neuralink is just one of several companies currently working on developing BCI technology:

      The potential for BCI to impact various industries such as robotics, medicine and biotech has generated a growing amount of interest and excitement. Additionally, heightened interest in the artificial intelligence (AI) sector has led to more research and exploration in related fields, and has attracted increased investment in fields benefiting from AI advancements, including robotics and medicine.

      AI is also being used as a tool to help discover new insights and make moves that might not have been possible without its use. Scientists in California have even developed a brain implant capable of decoding and vocalizing inner speech.

      Finally, one of the simplest ways to gain exposure to Neuralink would be through an exchange-traded fund (ETF) that invests in companies related to BCI technology. While there isn’t an ETF that exclusively focuses on BCIs, there are funds that offer exposure to related themes.

      In the health sector, some options covering similar themes include medical device ETFs and the iShares Healthcare Innovation ETF (LSE:HEAL,OTCPK:BLKIF), a fund that consists of companies that are developing new and innovative healthcare technologies.

      Two other options are the Global X Robotics & Artificial Intelligence ETF (NASDAQ:BOTZ), which includes companies that are involved in the development of robotics and AI, and the ARK Innovation ETF (ARCA:ARKK), which focuses on disruptive technologies across multiple industries, including healthcare and robotics.

      As with any investment decision, it’s important to perform due diligence on available options, including comparing ETFs, to ensure they align with one’s investment goals.

      Securities Disclosure: I, Meagen Seatter, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

      This post appeared first on investingnews.com
      by
      Read More
      In Investing

      Fabi Lara: What to Do When Commodities Prices Go Parabolic

      No Comments

      Speaking against a backdrop of record-high gold and silver prices, Fabi Lara, creator of the Next Big Rush, delivered a timely reality check at this year’s Vancouver Resource Investment Conference.

      Addressing a packed room that included a noticeable influx of first-time attendees, she urged investors to balance excitement with discipline as the commodities bull market accelerates.

      Lara framed her talk around advice she would give her daughter based on hard-earned lessons from more than a decade in the resource sector, including surviving long stretches of disappointment before a surge.

      “What we’re going through this year is not normal,” she said. “We’re not usually this fat and happy and joyful. This is completely outside of what the last number of years have been.”

      Lara, often dubbed the “uranium girl” for her early conviction in the sector’s 2021 to 2022 rally, drew parallels between uranium’s past run and current moves in the gold and silver market.

      Prices, she warned, are rising so fast that even seasoned investors are uneasy.

      “The price is moving too quickly,” she said, noting that her presentation charts were outdated almost as soon as they were prepared. “That’s how quickly this market is moving.”

      During the conference, which ran from January 25 to 26, gold breached US$5,000 per ounce, while silver reached triple digits, continuing on even higher as the week continued. Ultimately, those high levels proved as unsustainable as Lara anticipated — by Monday (February 2) gold was sitting in the US$4,600 range, while silver was at US$79.

      What stage is the market in?

      While some investors see parabolic prices as a signal to exit entirely, Lara cautioned against all-or-nothing thinking. Instead, she emphasized understanding where the market sits within the broader arc of a bull cycle.

      Referencing Doug Casey’s framework, she outlined three phases: the stealth stage, the wall of worry and the mania.

      In her view, today’s market sits uncomfortably between the latter two.

      “Some people think we’re already in mania because of the price,” Lara said. “I don’t think we’re quite there yet.”

      She pointed to lagging indicators, including subdued valuations across the TSX Venture Exchange and conservative assumptions in mining feasibility studies, as signs that the cycle still has room to run.

      That said, Lara acknowledged the risks of complacency.

      She recounted stories of investors who rode bull markets too long, only to find “no bids” when they tried to exit. Her solution: gradual repositioning. “Don’t wait too long,” she said. “Start to leave your positions slowly.”

      For her own portfolio — and hypothetically, for her daughter’s — Lara favors selling in thirds rather than making dramatic moves. Trimming positions can relieve pressure without sacrificing exposure to further upside. Fully exiting, she warned, risks missing the very payoff investors have waited years to see.

      Equally important is what happens after selling. Holding large amounts of cash, Lara admitted, doesn’t suit every personality, especially active speculators.

      To impose discipline, she has redirected some profits into dividend-paying oil stocks held in a separate account. “You get paid to wait,” she said, calling oil historically cheap by multiple measures.

      Beyond precious metals, Lara highlighted emerging areas of interest among veteran investors.

      Copper is getting increasing attention, and will likely receive more if prices stay stable. Nickel remains overlooked, while oil continues to offer a combination of value and income that contrasts sharply with the volatility of junior miners.

      Ultimately, Lara framed successful investing as a psychological exercise as much as an analytical one.

      “Doing this well is a result of greed and fear,” she said. “In a bear market, you need to be greedy. In a bull market, you need to be somewhat fearful.”

      Her closing message for newcomers and longtime investors: participate, but don’t lose perspective. Bull markets reward patience and punish excess.

      “We’re all salespeople, including me,” Lara reminded the audience. “So don’t believe everything you hear.”

      Securities Disclosure: I, Georgia Williams, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

      This post appeared first on investingnews.com
      by
      Read More
      In Investing

      Joe Cavatoni: Gold Price Drop — Why it Happened, What’s Next

      No Comments

      Joe Cavatoni, senior market strategist, Americas, at the World Gold Council, breaks down gold’s record-setting run past US$5,500 per ounce as well as its correction.

      ‘At the end of this, you’re looking at a lot of people who were pushing the price higher — speculative in nature — pulling back and taking money off the table,’ he said.

      Securities Disclosure: I, Charlotte McLeod, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

      This post appeared first on investingnews.com
      by
      Read More
      In Investing

      Silver Supply Tight, Demand Rising — What’s Next? First Majestic’s Mani Alkhafaji

      No Comments

      Mani Alkhafaji, president of First Majestic Silver (TSX:AG,NYSE:AG), discusses silver supply, demand and price dynamics, as well as how the company is positioning for 2026.

      He also shares his thoughts on when silver stocks may catch up to the silver price: ‘You’ve got to give it a couple of quarters, but when it comes in it’s going to come pretty quick.’

      Securities Disclosure: I, Charlotte McLeod, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

      This post appeared first on investingnews.com
      by
      Read More
      In Investing

      VersaBank Signs Deal to Custody Stablecorp’s QCAD Stablecoin

      No Comments

      A deal between VersaBank (TSX:VBNK,NASDAQ:VBNK) and Stablecorp Digital Currencies could be one of the clearest signals yet that Canadian dollar stablecoins are moving into the regulated financial mainstream.

      On Tuesday (February 3), VersaBank signed a definitive agreement to act as custodian for QCAD, Stablecorp’s Canadian‑dollar‑pegged stablecoin, using its proprietary VersaVault digital asset custody platform.

      For investors, the announcement is a sign that the Canadian decentralized finance (DeFi) industry is positioning itself for the next phase of the stablecoin boom.

      Agreement terms and immediate impact

      Under the terms of the agreement, VersaBank will hold and safeguard the reserve assets backing QCAD through the Ontario-based QCAD Digital Trust, which will manage those reserves on behalf of QCAD holders.

      The company will provide safekeeping and custodial services using its VersaVault technology, which it describes as a highly secure solution with Systems and Organization Controls 2 certification that has been designed specifically for digital asset custody. Put simply, VersaVault will become the vault, while the QCAD Digital Trust and Stablecorp will remain responsible for governance, issuance and compliance.

      For VersaBank, the arrangement creates a new revenue stream, allowing it to earn custody fees based on the value of QCAD assets held, along with a spread on QCAD‑related deposits. That income will be added to its net interest income on cash and securities rather than its lending‑related margin.

      For Stablecorp, the main takeaway is the regulatory optics: QCAD is already marketed as Canada’s first regulatory‑compliant, Canadian-dollar‑pegged stablecoin, and now its reserves will be held by a federally regulated Schedule I bank rather than a crypto‑native custodian.

      Strategic and market implications

      Stablecorp markets QCAD as a compliant, bank-grade Canadian dollar rail for cross-border payments, DeFi and institutional trading. The VersaBank deal reinforces that narrative by naming a Schedule I bank at the center of its reserve‑holding stack. From an investor standpoint, the deal makes it easier for institutions and regulated counterparties to see QCAD as a “safe” Canadian-dollar‑denominated instrument, rather than solely a crypto‑native token.

      Additionally, regulators and policymakers should see a Canadian dollar stablecoin that is both technically robust and institutionally anchored, which could help shape future rules around CAD‑pegged tokens.

      Stablecorp’s investor base already includes heavy hitters such as Coinbase Global (NASDAQ:COIN), Circle (NYSE:CRCL), DeFi Technologies (NASDAQ:DEFT) and FTP Ventures.

      The VersaBank partnership adds another layer of credibility that could help Stablecorp attract more traditional financial services capital as Canada’s broader stablecoin and digital asset regulatory framework evolves.

      The QCAD mandate represents a symbolically important strategic and balance sheet development, distinct from its core lending activities, offering long-term growth potential. By classifying QCAD-related net interest income within its cash and securities category, VersaBank signals that this activity is capital light and non-credit related. This approach diversifies revenue without significantly altering the bank’s credit risk profile.

      This move may attract investors cautious of banks with high crypto-lending exposure, but comfortable with custody and infrastructure. The QCAD deal validates a broader digital asset custody franchise, especially if VersaVault gains more mandates for Canadian-dollar-pegged or other tokenized assets and stablecoins.

      Broader implications for Canadian investors

      The VersaBank-Stablecorp partnership is significant for Canada-focused investors as it represents a blending of traditional finance and crypto-native infrastructure. Stablecoins such as QCAD act as programmable Canadian dollars. The involvement of a Schedule I bank as custodian enhances the prospect of using CAD stablecoins for interbank or institutional settlement, particularly as Canada explores wholesale central bank digital currency technologies.

      Furthermore, the arrangement opens the door for new tokenized financial products like money market funds, deposits or treasury management products that will reside on public blockchains, but are securely backed by regulated entities.

      From a risk management perspective, investors may want to watch reserve composition disclosures for QCAD, and monitor how quickly QCAD’s circulating supply and VersaBank’s associated fee income scale.

      For now, the deal is more of a strategic and signaling move than a near‑term earnings inflection point, but it lays the groundwork for QCAD to become a core Canadian-dollar‑denominated rail in Canada’s digital asset stack.

      Securities Disclosure: I, Meagen Seatter, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

      This post appeared first on investingnews.com
      by
      Read More
      In Latest News

      Lawmakers question whether US moving fast enough to capitalize on Hezbollah’s weakened state

      No Comments

      A House Foreign Affairs Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee hearing on Tuesday underscored what lawmakers and witnesses repeatedly described as a ‘historic’ but ‘narrowing’ opportunity to weaken Hezbollah and restore Lebanese state sovereignty, while exposing sharp disagreement over whether current U.S. policy is moving fast or forcefully enough.

      Opening the hearing, Chairman Mike Lawler, R-NY., said Lebanon is ‘at a crossroads’ following the Nov. 2024 Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire, arguing the moment offers ‘an unprecedented opportunity’ to help Lebanon ‘break free of the shackles of Iran’s malign influence.’ He warned, however, that progress has been uneven, saying implementation of the Lebanese Armed Forces’ has been ‘haphazard at best.’

      The ranking member, Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., struck a more confrontational tone toward the administration, warning that Hezbollah is already rebuilding and that U.S. policy risks squandering the moment.

      ‘There is a historic opportunity in Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah and remove its grip on the Lebanese state,’ he said. ‘That window of opportunity, however, is narrow. Hezbollah is working hard to rebuild, rearm and to reconstitute itself.’

      He criticized cuts to non-security assistance and faulted comments by a Trump administration envoy who described Hezbollah as ‘a political party that also has a militant aspect to it,’ arguing such language ‘sent the wrong signals’ at a critical moment.

      David Schenker, senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, testified that while Hezbollah has been weakened militarily, the pace of disarmament remains slow and obstructed.

      ‘The LAF has a presence in the south that it didn’t have prior to November 2024,’ Schenker said. ‘But they are not in control. Hezbollah still controls the region.’

      Schenker said the obstacle is no longer capability but political will. ‘At this point, the question of disarmament is not a matter of capability but of will,’ he told lawmakers, warning that Hezbollah continues to thrive amid corruption and a cash-based economy.

      Hanin Ghaddar, senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that even full weapons surrender would not dismantle Hezbollah’s power.

      ‘Hezbollah is not sustained by weapons alone,’ Ghaddar said. ‘It survives through an economic and political ecosystem that protects cash flows, penetrates state institutions and enables military rebuilding.’

      She warned that Lebanon’s unregulated cash economy has become Hezbollah’s most durable asset. ‘Weapons can be collected, but money keeps flowing,’ Ghaddar said. ‘Disarmament without dismantling the cash economy… will not be durable.’

      All three witnesses emphasized U.S. support should be tied to measurable performance such as progress on disarmament of Hezbollah and economic reform.

      Schenker called for renewed sanctions against corrupt Lebanese officials, saying, ‘We should be sanctioning leaders right now… who are obstructing reform.’

      Dana Stroul, director of research and senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, warned that Washington’s approach remains incomplete.

      ‘For the past year, U.S. policy has focused on Hezbollah disarmament, which is critical, but on its own is only a partial strategy,’ Stroul said.

      She cautioned that upcoming parliamentary elections could either ‘strengthen or undermine the anti-Hezbollah government,’ calling it the ‘worst-case outcome’ if Hezbollah-aligned politicians retain power.

      Ghaddar said Hezbollah’s weakening has shifted Lebanese public discourse. ‘The mythology of resistance has shattered,’ she said. ‘Peace is no longer taboo.’

      She argued that normalization with Israel would raise the political cost of Hezbollah’s rearmament and help lock in reform. ‘Without a credible peace horizon, disarmament and economic reform will be temporary. With one, they become structural,’ Ghaddar said.


      This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
      by
      Read More