The closing argument from Molo, the lawyer representing one side, was described by observers as choppy and difficult to follow. Rather than weaving a compelling narrative, Molo repeatedly interrupted himself, backpedaled, and inserted tangential remarks such as 'remember the residuals?' Such distractions are particularly damaging in a closing, where the goal is to present a clear, concise story that ties together all the testimony into a coherent case. Legal experts note that in high-profile cases like this, the closing argument is often the last chance to sway the jury or judge, and any misstep can be costly.

One of the more embarrassing moments occurred when Molo referred to former OpenAI president Greg Brockman as 'Greg Altman,' blending his name with that of Sam Altman. While such a slip might seem minor, it can undermine the lawyer's credibility and suggest a lack of familiarity with the key players. In a case where the facts are already seen as challenging for Molo's side, this gaffe only added fuel to the critics' fire.

Background of the Lawsuit

To understand the significance of these closing arguments, it's essential to revisit the origins of the dispute. OpenAI was founded in 2015 as a non-profit artificial intelligence research company with a mission to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI) benefits all of humanity. Elon Musk was an early co-chair and donor, contributing $100 million. However, Musk left the board in 2018 due to potential conflicts with Tesla's AI development. In 2019, OpenAI restructured into a 'capped-profit' entity to attract investment, with Microsoft becoming a major partner.

The current lawsuit, filed by Musk in early 2024, alleges that Altman and the OpenAI board have abandoned the original mission in favor of profit. Musk claims that the partnership with Microsoft and the shift towards commercialization constitute a breach of contract and a violation of antitrust laws. He seeks to force OpenAI to remain open-source and non-profit. Altman and OpenAI have countered that Musk's lawsuit is a baseless attempt to slow down a competitor, and that the changes were necessary to secure funding for cutting-edge research.

The trial has featured testimony from former employees, technical experts, and industry leaders. Key points of contention include whether OpenAI's agreements with Microsoft give the tech giant undue control over the organization and whether the profit cap is genuinely enforceable. The case has broader implications for how AI companies can balance safety, transparency, and profit motives.

Analysis of the Closing Argument

Legal analysts who followed the proceedings noted that Molo's closing was markedly different from the polished presentations often seen in such cases. 'A closing argument is where you simplify complex evidence into a story that resonates,' said a law professor from Harvard. 'Molo's approach felt like a stream of consciousness rather than a strategic narrative.' The constant interruptions—rephrasing points, adding caveats, or jumping back to earlier topics—made it hard for listeners to track the logical flow. This could be particularly problematic if the case is being decided by a jury, as they might tune out or lose the thread.

Moreover, Molo's emphasis on 'residuals' seemed out of place. Residuals typically refer to ongoing payments for intellectual property, but the core of the case involves governance and mission drift. By bringing up residuals without clear context, Molo may have confused the court. Some speculated he was trying to argue that OpenAI's investors should receive residual benefits from the technology—a claim that Altman's team likely had a strong counter-argument for.

Another aspect of the closing was the handling of the core evidence. While the plaintiff's side had presented emails and internal documents showing Altman's shifting stance on open-source commitments, Molo's delivery failed to highlight those in a compelling way. Instead, he jumped between timelines and witnesses, making it hard to build a damning picture. In contrast, Altman's legal team, led by a well-known litigator, delivered a crisp and focused closing, emphasizing that OpenAI's transformation was always a possibility given the resource demands of AI research.

Historical Context and Significance

The Musk-Altman battle is not just a court case; it is a proxy war for the soul of AI development. The tension between profit-driven corporations and open, safety-oriented research has been a theme since the early days of AI. OpenAI's pivot from non-profit to 'capped-profit' was a massive philosophical shift that divided the AI community. Musk, through his own AI company X.AI, has positioned himself as a champion of open and safe AI, though critics note that X.AI is also a private company seeking profit.

The outcome of this trial could set a precedent for how similar organizations are governed. If Musk wins, it might force OpenAI to revert to a fully non-profit model or at least reduce Microsoft's influence. If Altman wins, it could legitimize the capped-profit structure and encourage more hybrid models in the tech industry. Either way, the legal drama has exposed the internal conflicts that have been simmering for years.

Additionally, the case highlights the personal animosity between Musk and Altman. Once close allies in the AI safety movement, they have become bitter rivals. Musk's frequent criticisms of ChatGPT and OpenAI on social media have added a public layer to the legal feud. The court proceedings have included testimonies about tense board meetings and email exchanges where both sides accused each other of undermining the original mission.

What the Gaffe Means

Calling Greg Brockman 'Greg Altman' might seem like a simple slip of the tongue, but in a high-stakes legal setting, it can be a symptom of a deeper lack of preparation. Some legal strategists suggest that when lawyers make such mistakes, it indicates they are not fully in command of the facts or the witness list. Altman's team was quick to point out the error in their rebuttal, using it to underscore that the plaintiff's side is not paying attention to details.

Observers noted that the judge, too, looked taken aback. In legal proceedings, small errors can erode the lawyer's credibility and make the judge or jury less sympathetic. Even if the substantive arguments are strong, presentation matters. Molo's slip-ups may have made the plaintiff's case seem less credible, even if the underlying evidence is damning.

However, some argue that the mistake is being blown out of proportion. 'Everyone makes mistakes,' said a trial consultant. 'What matters is how you recover. Molo did not correct himself immediately, which made it worse.' The lack of a quick recovery suggests that Molo may have been flustered, perhaps because he knew the facts were not on his side.

Broader Industry Implications

The Musk-Altman trial is unfolding amid a broader regulatory reckoning for AI. Governments around the world are drafting laws to govern AI development, and the outcome of this case could influence how those laws are written. If Musk's arguments win the day, we might see stricter requirements for AI companies to remain transparent and non-profit. If Altman prevails, it could embolden other AI labs to adopt similar capped-profit structures, potentially accelerating commercialization.

Moreover, the case has become a public relations battleground. Supporters of Musk see it as a fight against corporate capture of AI, while backers of Altman view it as an attempt by a disgruntled former partner to slow down innovation. The media coverage has been intense, with every revelation scrutinized. The closing arguments, being the last word before deliberation, are especially critical for shaping public perception.

In the coming days, the jury is expected to begin deliberations. Legal pundits are split on the likely outcome, but many believe that the plaintiff has an uphill battle. The fact that the closing argument was not as polished as it could be might further tilt the odds. Regardless of the verdict, the case has already forced the AI industry to confront uncomfortable questions about governance, profit, and the true meaning of openness.

As the trial wraps up, the tech world watches closely. The decision will have ripple effects through Silicon Valley and beyond, potentially defining the future of AI for years to come. Whether Molo's choppy closing argument will be a footnote or a turning point remains to be seen.

Source: The Verge News

Background of the Dispute

The conflict traces back to OpenAI's origins in 2015. Elon Musk was one of the co-founders and early donors, committing to a mission of developing artificial general intelligence (AGI) that would benefit humanity—a goal that required a nonprofit structure. Musk left the board in 2018, citing conflicts of interest and disagreements over the direction of the company. In 2019, OpenAI transitioned to a 'capped-profit' model, allowing it to attract investment while still maintaining a nonprofit parent. This shift enabled the first two major investments from Microsoft, totaling around $1 billion and then an additional $10 billion. Critics, including Musk, argued that this structure inherently compromised the nonprofit mission.

The current lawsuit, filed by Musk in early 2024, alleges that Altman and the nonprofit board violated their fiduciary duties by prioritizing profit over the original charitable purpose. The case has drawn significant attention because it touches on the core question of whether AI companies can balance commercial success with public benefit. The recent Molo filing—which appears to align with Musk's position—adds nuance by focusing on the specific nature of the 2023 investment.

The 'Crown Jewels' Argument

Molo's filing contends that the 'crown jewels' of OpenAI are its IP, not its hardware or people. This distinction is crucial because it frames the 2023 investment as a transfer of value from the nonprofit to for-profit entities. According to the argument, the earlier investments maintained 'important constraints' that kept the capped-profit structure intact. For example, Microsoft's initial investments came with strict limits on returns—shareholders could only receive up to 100 times their investment, and any profit beyond that would revert to the nonprofit. However, the 2023 investment, rumored to be up to $100 billion, 'changed the world,' in Molo's words.

The filing alleges that the 2023 deal enriched investors and insiders 'at the expense of the nonprofit' by effectively giving away the IP without adequate compensation. It further claims that the nonprofit no longer has meaningful control over the technology, and that the open-source ethos originally championed by Musk and others has been abandoned. Altman and Brockman, the filing asserts, 'breached the charitable trust created by Elon.'

Implications for the AI Industry

If the court accepts Molo's reasoning, it could set a precedent for how AI companies structure their assets and governance. The 'crown jewels' concept emphasizes that the true value of an AI company lies in its models, datasets, and proprietary algorithms. This is particularly relevant because many AI startups are now grappling with similar transitions from nonprofit or open-source origins to commercial entities. The outcome of this case could influence how future investors evaluate such companies.

The 2023 investment in question was widely reported as a game-changer. Microsoft's deepened integration with OpenAI allowed for the commercialization of GPT-4 and subsequent models directly integrated into products like Microsoft 365, Azure, and Bing. While this brought in massive revenue, it also created a conflict: the nonprofit's mission of 'safe and beneficial AGI' seemed secondary to market expansion. Molo's argument suggests that this shift was not just a strategic evolution but a fundamental betrayal of the original trust.

Legal Analysis and Key Terms

The legal concept of a charitable trust is central to the case. Under Delaware law, charitable trusts impose obligations on trustees to act in the best interest of the mission. The plaintiffs argue that Altman and the board acted as de facto trustees and that the 2023 investment amounted to self-dealing. The 'crown jewels' metaphor underscores that the IP was the most valuable asset held in trust, and its transfer to for-profit entities was a misappropriation.

Musk's legal team has also pointed to OpenAI's shifting stance on open-sourcing. In 2015, the organization promised to share its research and code. However, by 2023, models like GPT-4 were completely closed-source, with access only through paid APIs. This departure from transparency is framed as another breach of the charitable mission. The Molo filing supports this view, noting that the 'important constraints' of the earlier investments allowed public oversight, while the 2023 deal did not.

Reactions and Next Steps

Neither OpenAI nor Microsoft have formally responded to the Molo filing, but previous statements have defended the capped-profit model as necessary for funding expensive AI research. Altman has repeatedly argued that the for-profit shift allows OpenAI to compete with tech giants while still dedicating resources to safety research. However, critics see this as a hollow promise, given the rapid pace of commercialization.

The case is being closely watched by the entire tech industry. If Musk prevails, it could force OpenAI to restructure or even unwind the for-profit model. That would have massive ripple effects, impacting Microsoft's cloud and AI strategy. Conversely, if the court sides with Altman, it would validate the capped-profit structure and potentially encourage other nonprofit AI projects to follow a similar path.

Musk's recent social media posts have highlighted the 'crown jewels' argument, framing it as a matter of public trust. Meanwhile, legal experts note that the concept of IP as a trust asset is not new in corporate law, but its application to an AI nonprofit is uncharted territory. The next hearing is scheduled for later this month, where both sides will present evidence on the nature of the 2023 investment.

The Molo filing adds a layer of specificity to what has been a broad philosophical debate. By zeroing in on the IP as the true value, it forces the court to consider not just the letter of the capped-profit agreement but the spirit of the original mission. For observers, it underscores the tensions inherent in building AI for public benefit while attracting private capital.

Source: The Verge News

According to internal sources, Microsoft plans to remove most of its Claude Code licenses and direct its developers to use GitHub Copilot CLI instead. While Claude Code has been a valuable addition, it has also undermined Microsoft’s own Copilot CLI tool—a command line version of GitHub Copilot that operates outside of development apps like Visual Studio Code. The decision is driven by both strategic and financial considerations.

A Popular But Problematic Tool

Claude Code, developed by Anthropic, is an AI-powered coding assistant that runs directly in the terminal. It allows developers to generate code, debug, and perform complex tasks using natural language prompts. Microsoft’s initial trial with Claude Code aimed to explore multiple AI coding assistants and gather feedback from its engineering teams. However, Claude Code quickly became the preferred tool among Microsoft’s developers, including non-engineers like designers and project managers who used it to prototype ideas. This widespread adoption created a dilemma: while the tool boosted productivity, it also pulled usage away from Microsoft’s own GitHub Copilot products.

The Experiences + Devices team, which includes engineers responsible for major products like Windows, Microsoft 365, Outlook, Microsoft Teams, and Surface, is now winding down its usage of Claude Code by the end of June 2026. Engineers are being encouraged to start transitioning their workflows to GitHub Copilot CLI in the coming weeks. The June 30th cutoff is notably the last day of Microsoft’s current financial year, making the cancellation an effective way to cut operating expenses as the new fiscal year begins in July.

Internal Memo Confirms Shift

Rajesh Jha, executive vice president of Microsoft’s Experiences + Devices group, addressed employees in an internal memo obtained by Notepad. “When we began offering both Copilot CLI and Claude Code, our goal was to learn quickly, benchmark the tools in real engineering workflows, and understand what best supported our teams,” Jha wrote. “Claude Code was an important part of that learning… at the same time, Copilot CLI has given us something especially important: a product we can help shape directly with GitHub for Microsoft’s repos, workflows, security expectations, and engineering needs.”

The memo suggests that Microsoft values the ability to directly influence the development of Copilot CLI, something it cannot do with Anthropic’s tool. This internal alignment is crucial for integrating deeply with Microsoft’s own infrastructure, security protocols, and engineering culture.

Financial and Competitive Pressures

Beyond strategy, financial factors play a significant role. Canceling Claude Code licenses reduces operational costs at a key fiscal transition point. Moreover, Microsoft has been investing heavily in its own AI coding tools, including GitHub Copilot, which has seen widespread adoption across the industry. However, Claude Code’s superior performance in certain areas—such as handling complex multi-step tasks and providing more context-aware suggestions—has made it a tough competitor.

Microsoft’s own developers have favored Claude Code over Copilot CLI in recent months, a trend that the company hopes to reverse with improved investment in Copilot CLI. The GitHub team has already shipped significant improvements based on direct feedback from Microsoft engineers, and the company aims to make Copilot CLI the best agentic coding experience for its workforce. Jha emphasized in his memo that “this is a shared accountability across GitHub and E+D leadership: to make Copilot CLI the best agentic coding experience for Microsoft engineers.”

Anthropic Remains a Key Partner

Despite canceling Claude Code licenses, Microsoft’s relationship with Anthropic remains strong. Anthropic’s models will still be accessible through Copilot CLI, along with internal-only Microsoft models and OpenAI’s models. This ensures continuity for engineers who rely on Anthropic’s advanced language capabilities. Moreover, Microsoft’s deal with Anthropic for the Foundry platform—which provides access to Claude Opus 4.1, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and Claude Haiku 4.5—remains unaffected. Microsoft continues to view Anthropic’s models as superior for certain tasks within Microsoft 365 apps and Copilot, particularly where reasoning and nuanced understanding are required.

Earlier this year, Microsoft became one of Anthropic’s top customers, reportedly counting sales of Anthropic models toward its own Azure quotas. The company also signed a deal in November 2025 that allows Microsoft Foundry customers to use Claude models. This ongoing partnership highlights the complex dynamics between collaboration and competition in the AI industry.

Impact on Engineers and Future Outlook

The transition away from Claude Code will not be easy for many engineers. Microsoft had encouraged employees without coding experience to experiment with Claude Code, allowing them to prototype ideas quickly. Those workflows now need to be migrated to Copilot CLI, which may lack some of the intuitive features that made Claude Code popular. Microsoft is encouraging developers to file bug reports and feedback on Copilot CLI to expedite improvements.

The company is also investing heavily in closing the gap between the tools. There have been reports that Microsoft considered acquiring Cursor—a competing AI coding assistant—to bolster its capabilities, but ultimately decided against it due to potential regulatory scrutiny. Instead, Microsoft is focusing on internal development and partnerships with AI startups.

The broader context is the intense competition in the AI coding assistant market. Tools like Claude Code, GitHub Copilot, Codex, and Cursor are all vying for developer attention. Microsoft’s decision to consolidate around its own platform reflects a strategic priority to control the developer experience and reduce dependency on third-party tools. However, this may create friction with employees who have grown accustomed to Claude Code’s performance.

As Microsoft’s GitHub team works to enhance Copilot CLI, the success of this transition will be closely watched by the tech industry. If Microsoft can deliver a tool that matches or surpasses Claude Code, it will strengthen the company’s position in the AI-assisted development space. If not, the company may face internal dissatisfaction and a potential exodus of top engineering talent to competitors that offer more flexible tooling.

For now, Microsoft is betting big on its own products. The company recently reported that 91 percent of its engineering teams were using GitHub Copilot before the Claude Code trial began. With the trial ending, Microsoft aims to restore that number and demonstrate that its AI coding tools can outperform the best alternatives on the market.

The decision also reflects a broader trend among tech giants: investing heavily in internal AI tools that can be tightly integrated with existing workflows and data. As AI continues to reshape software development, the tools that developers use will increasingly become strategic assets. Microsoft’s move to prioritize Copilot CLI over Claude Code is a clear signal that the company intends to control its own AI destiny, even as it continues to partner with leading AI labs like Anthropic.

Source: The Verge News

This controversy sparked Reksopuro’s interest in the broader backlash against data center construction across the United States. A student at the University of Washington studying the intersection of technology and public policy, she decided to create a tool that would make the issue more accessible. Using data from Epoch AI and scraped legislation, she built an interactive map that tracks data center construction and AI policy around the world. “I wanted it to be something that my younger sisters could play through and explore to understand what are the data centers in the area and what’s actually being done about it,” Reksopuro said. She hoped to shift their opinions that way, “instead of like, through TikTok.”

The map, built with the help of an AI model, searches for new sources four times a day and cross-references them with an existing database. “Once it does that, it will write a new summary, add it to the news feed, and populate it on the sidebar,” she explained. “I wanted it to be self-updating, since I’m also a student.” The result is a dynamic, user-friendly platform that reveals the patchwork of policies and public sentiment surrounding data centers—a topic that has become increasingly contentious as the demand for cloud computing and AI services skyrockets.

Data centers are the physical backbone of the digital economy. They power everything from streaming video to artificial intelligence models, but their rapid expansion has triggered fierce opposition in communities nationwide. After the initial construction phase, these facilities bring few permanent jobs, while straining local water and electricity resources. According to Bloomberg, power costs in much of the US have hit records partly due to data center demand. In Virginia’s “Data Center Alley,” residents have reported brownouts and rising utility bills. In places like Oregon and Arizona, data centers have been accused of depleting groundwater supplies. The environmental impact, combined with limited economic benefits, has turned what was once a quiet industry into a flashpoint for local activism.

Reksopuro’s map highlights how the response to data centers varies dramatically by region. In Maine, lawmakers passed the first state-level moratorium on hyperscale data centers in April, though it was later vetoed by Governor Janet Mills. The move reflected widespread concern over water usage, land consumption, and the lack of job creation. By contrast, Texas has embraced data centers with open arms. “Texas actually passed a tax exemption for data centers,” Reksopuro noted. The state provides over $1 billion in annual tax breaks to data center operators, as reported by The Texas Tribune. This disparity underscores a deeper divide: while some states see data centers as engines of economic development, others view them as costly burdens that serve corporate interests at the expense of local communities.

The map also reveals the global dimension of data center policy. Countries like Singapore and the Netherlands have imposed moratoriums on new construction due to energy constraints, while others in the Middle East and Asia offer massive incentives. The AI boom has only accelerated the buildout, with tech giants like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon announcing billions of dollars in new data center investments. Yet transparency remains scarce. “Right now, it’s this really opaque thing—and all of a sudden, there’s a facility,” Reksopuro said. “I think that if people knew about data centers beforehand, it would give them leverage. They would be able to negotiate: ask for job training programs, tax revenue, environmental monitoring, things to improve their community.”

The lack of public awareness isn’t accidental. Data center developers often operate under nondisclosure agreements with local governments, and many projects are fast-tracked through zoning exemptions. This has led to a growing movement of data center opponents who argue that the industry benefits from a culture of secrecy. In Northern Virginia, activists have pushed for impact studies and community benefit agreements. In Oregon, the fight over Mount Hood has drawn national attention to the water consumption of giant facilities. Reksopuro’s map aims to cut through the confusion by providing a central resource where anyone can see what’s being built, where, and how local officials are responding.

Beyond the map itself, the broader context of the AI data center buildout is critical. The U.S. government has designated AI infrastructure as a national priority, with the Department of Energy investing in grid upgrades and the Department of Commerce offering grants for domestic chip manufacturing. Meanwhile, states compete for data center projects by offering tax incentives and streamlined permitting. This race to the bottom has alarmed some economists, who point out that the jobs created are often temporary construction positions rather than permanent tech roles. The average data center employs just 30 to 50 people, while consuming as much electricity as a small city. As more facilities come online, questions about environmental justice and equitable resource allocation will only intensify.

Reksopuro’s work is a reminder that data centers are not just a technical or economic issue—they are a political one. Her interactive map empowers citizens to become informed participants in that debate. By tracking legislation, construction timelines, and public controversies, the tool offers a window into the hidden infrastructure that powers our digital lives. As the AI race heats up and demand for computing power grows, the need for transparency will only increase. Map in hand, communities can demand a seat at the table—and perhaps a fairer share of the benefits.

Source: The Verge News

The science behind the technique is straightforward: low-frequency sound waves vibrate oxygen molecules away from the fuel source, depriving the fire of a critical component needed for combustion. Unlike water or chemical suppressants, infrasound leaves no residue or water damage, making it attractive for sensitive environments like data centers or kitchens. The company’s co-founder and CEO, Geoff Bruder, explained during the demonstration that they had moved beyond basic point-and-shoot methods. “We figured out how to run it through ducting and distribute it like a sprinkler system,” he said.

Sonic Fire Tech aims to replace traditional sprinklers in both commercial and residential settings. In California, all new homes built since 2011 are required to have sprinklers, so a water-free alternative could reduce installation costs and prevent property damage. The company also envisions a backpack-mounted version for wildland firefighters battling fast-moving blazes. According to a spokesperson, the company is making “meaningful technological improvements on a monthly basis.”

Expert Skepticism

Despite the promising demonstration, fire protection experts remain cautious. Nathan Wittasek, a fire protection engineer based in Los Angeles, noted that sprinklers have a well-established, decades-long track record. “They apply water directly to the fuel, cool the space, slow or stop flashover, and give people time to get out while reducing risk to firefighters,” he said. “Sound may knock down a small flame, but it does not cool hot surfaces or wet fuel. That raises real questions about re-ignition, smoldering fires, hidden fires, and fires that are partially blocked by contents.”

Wittasek emphasized that equivalency to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13D standard—the benchmark for residential sprinklers—requires rigorous, documented testing. The NFPA itself confirmed that only the authority having jurisdiction can approve equivalency, and that technical documentation must be submitted. Sonic Fire Tech has not publicly provided such details, though the company claims third-party validation from Fire Solutions Group, a Pennsylvania consultancy. However, the executive summary of that validation, shared with reporters, notes that “additional testing and optimization are recommended” and describes the technology as having “potential to complement or, in certain applications, serve as an alternative.”

Academic Concerns

Michael Gollner, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, who specializes in fire dynamics, echoed these concerns. He pointed to a 2018 academic paper concluding that “acoustics alone are insufficient to control flames beyond the incipient stage.” Gollner noted that fire sprinklers are extensively tested and certified through standards developed by the fire safety community over many years. “I think this product needs to demonstrate the same or better performance with the same reliability before it can be considered to replace any existing safety measure,” he said. “While I am absolutely supportive of out-of-the-box thinking, lives are truly at stake, and new technologies must carefully demonstrate effectiveness and reliability before being entrusted by society.”

The absence of full-scale testing covering typical residential fire scenarios—such as furniture, mattress, electrical, and attic fires—leaves significant gaps. Experts also want to see how the system performs under varying conditions: open and closed doors, crosswinds, obstructed fuel packages, and whether re-ignition occurs after the infrasound stops. Gollner stressed that even if the system extinguishes a small grease fire, it may not stop the fire from spreading through hidden cavities or reigniting from hot surfaces.

Fire Department Interest

The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, which hosted the demonstration, remains open to further testing. Deputy Fire Chief Tracie Dutter said the agency does not recommend specific products but aims to understand new technology’s potential. “Sonic representatives indicated they are exploring opportunities to partner with fire departments to test this technology on a bulldozer,” she said. “The district would be open to testing this system on one of our dozers to better understand its limitations and potential failure points.”

Firefighters also want clarity on long-term maintenance requirements, routine calibration, and how system failures—such as a malfunctioning detector or acoustic generator—are identified and communicated to the property owner. These practical considerations are essential before any new suppression technology can gain widespread adoption.

The infrasound approach represents a novel departure from century-old sprinkler systems. While the demonstration was visually impressive, the path to replacing sprinklers remains long and uncertain. Comprehensive testing, peer-reviewed validation, and regulatory acceptance are still needed. Until then, acoustic fire suppression may remain a promising but unproven alternative, suitable only for niche applications where water damage is unacceptable, such as in data centers or art storage facilities. For homes and wildlands, the industry standard—water—is likely to persist.

Source: Ars Technica News

Background: Colorado’s Landmark Repair Law

Colorado’s Consumer Right to Repair Digital Electronic Equipment, enacted in 2024 and effective January 2026, was one of the most comprehensive repair laws in the United States. It required manufacturers of digital electronics—such as smartphones, laptops, tablets, and Wi-Fi routers—to provide consumers and independent repair shops with access to the tools, parts, and documentation needed to fix their devices. The law was hailed by environmental groups, small businesses, and consumer advocates as a major step toward reducing electronic waste and empowering consumers to repair their own property.

The right-to-repair movement has gained momentum across the country in recent years, with several states passing similar legislation. Proponents argue that manufacturers have long used proprietary designs, software locks, and limited access to repair resources to force consumers into expensive replacements or authorized repair networks. This practice, they say, contributes to the growing problem of electronic waste—the world’s fastest-growing waste stream—and undermines consumer choice.

Opponents, typically large tech companies, contend that allowing unrestricted access to proprietary diagnostic tools and components could compromise security and intellectual property. They warn that malicious actors might exploit repair tools to reverse-engineer critical systems, leaving networks vulnerable to hacks. This tension between the right to repair and cybersecurity concerns has become a central battleground in state legislatures.

The Failed Bill: SB26-090

SB26-090 was introduced on April 2, 2025, in the Colorado Senate and passed unanimously in committee the same day. It later cleared the full Senate on April 16 with bipartisan support. The bill’s primary sponsors argued that it was necessary to protect “critical infrastructure” from potential security breaches. Under its language, companies that could demonstrate that their products were used in critical infrastructure systems—such as power grids, water treatment plants, or telecommunications networks—would be exempt from sharing repair information with third parties.

Critics quickly pointed out that the term “critical infrastructure” had not been clearly defined in the bill. They feared it could be expanded by companies to include any device connected to a network, such as a home router or even a smart thermostat, thus eviscerating the original law. “This bill would have blown a massive hole in Colorado’s right-to-repair law,” said Danny Katz, executive director of the local consumer advocacy group CoPIRG, which led the opposition. “It was a Trojan horse designed to undo the progress we’ve made.”

The bill’s proponents, including Representative Chad Clifford, a Democrat who served as vice chair of the House committee, emphasized the need to balance repair access with security. During the hearing, Clifford cited the example of Cloudflare’s famous wall of lava lamps—a physical randomness generator used to secure internet encryption—as evidence that some security measures must remain secret to be effective. “I don’t know why anybody has to have lava lamps on a wall to keep the Chinese from getting into a network, but it’s what they came up with that worked,” Clifford said. “How they do that, I believe they should be able to keep it a secret, even in Colorado.”

Cybersecurity Arguments Under Scrutiny

However, cybersecurity experts who testified against the bill challenged the notion that repair access poses a significant threat. Billy Rios, a well-known white-hat hacker and cybersecurity professional, dismissed the idea that repair tools could be easily weaponized. “There is no time,” Rios said during the hearing, emphasizing that real-world attacks are almost always remote and occur in real time. Defenders of critical networks need to patch vulnerabilities immediately, without waiting for manufacturer approval. “It doesn’t work that way,” he added.

Others pointed out that the overwhelming majority of cyberattacks do not involve physical access to devices or replacement parts. Instead, attackers exploit software flaws, phishing campaigns, and other remote vectors. By restricting repair access, companies might actually increase security risks by forcing consumers and businesses to rely on obsolete, unpatched devices—or to perform unregulated repairs themselves without proper documentation.

The economic argument also played a role. Some supporters of the bill warned that large technology companies might pull their products from Colorado rather than comply with the repair law. Representative Clifford suggested that companies would “just not have commerce on those items here.” But opponents countered that such threats were empty: Colorado is a significant market, and corporate backlash rarely materializes in practice. Indeed, after similar repair laws in New York and Minnesota, no major tech companies withdrew from those states.

A Broad Coalition Fights Back

The defeat of SB26-090 was the result of coordinated opposition from a wide range of stakeholders. In addition to coPIRG and national organizations like the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), Repair.org, iFixit, and Consumer Reports, local groups such as Blue Star Recyclers, Recycle Colorado, Environment Colorado, and GreenLatinos joined the fight. Small repair businesses and individual citizens also testified, sharing stories of how the existing law had already improved their ability to fix devices.

“While we were making progress at chipping away at the momentum for it, we had still been losing,” Katz wrote in an email after the hearing. “So, we took nothing for granted, and I believe the incredible testimony from the broad range of cybersecurity experts, businesses, repair advocates, recyclers, and people who want the freedom to fix their stuff made a big difference.”

The mood in the hearing room was tense, with dozens of people lining up to speak. By the end, the committee’s members appeared weary and uncertain. Representative Naquetta Ricks, a Democrat, summed up the confusion when she cast her no vote: “What are we really trying to do here? Are we protecting just one company, or are we looking at really critical infrastructure? I’m not convinced.”

National Implications and the Road Ahead

The failure of Colorado’s SB26-090 is a bellwether for the right-to-repair movement nationwide. Similar bills have been introduced in other states, often with identical language targeting “critical infrastructure” exemptions. The tech industry’s lobbying efforts have intensified as repair laws gain traction. In the past year alone, Iowa enacted a broad repair law, and more than a dozen other states have introduced legislation.

Nathan Proctor, senior director of US PIRG’s Campaign for the Right to Repair, expressed relief but acknowledged that the fight is far from over. “The fact of the matter is, unfixable stuff is everywhere,” Proctor said. “This is a widespread problem, and it requires a widespread response.” He expects lobbyists to continue pushing for exemptions in Colorado and elsewhere, potentially with refined definitions that are harder to challenge.

For now, repair advocates in Colorado are celebrating a hard-won victory. But they remain vigilant. The original fix-it law remains intact, and manufacturers of digital electronics must continue to provide repair resources. Environmental groups note that enabling repairs is crucial for reducing the 50 million tons of electronic waste generated globally each year. Small businesses that rely on repair income have gained a lifeline. And consumers—at least in Colorado—retain the right to fix their own devices without corporate interference.

The battle has also highlighted deeper issues about who controls technology after purchase. As devices become more integrated into every aspect of life—from smart meters to connected vehicles—the right to repair becomes not just a consumer issue but one with implications for national security, economic fairness, and sustainability. Colorado’s rejection of the “critical infrastructure” carve-out sends a clear signal that broad exemptions cannot be easily sold to lawmakers once the public and experts weigh in.

Within the tech industry, the outcome has prompted renewed discussion about voluntary cooperation. Some companies, such as Apple and Samsung, have started expanding their repair programs in response to regulatory pressure. However, critics argue that these programs often remain limited and costly, failing to provide the same access as independent repair. The Colorado defeat may accelerate efforts to craft federal repair legislation, though that prospect remains uncertain given the polarized political landscape.

In the immediate term, repair advocates will closely monitor other states where similar bills are pending. They are also preparing for possible amendments to Colorado’s existing law, as opponents may try to introduce narrower exemptions. The coalition that stopped SB26-090—spanning environmental, consumer, and cybersecurity groups—plans to stay active. “We’ve shown that when we unite, we can win,” Katz said. “But we can’t rest. The tech industry has deep pockets and they won’t give up. Neither will we.”

The Colorado House committee’s vote on Monday evening did more than kill a single bill; it affirmed that the right to repair is a principle worth defending. For the thousands of Coloradans who spoke up, the result was a reminder that grassroots advocacy can still triumph over well-funded lobbying. As one attendee put it after the hearing, “Freedom to fix is not just about saving money—it’s about owning what you buy.” And for now, in Colorado, that principle stands firm.

This story originally appeared on wired.com.

Source: Ars Technica News

The original Section VI(2)(B) of the Condé Nast User Agreement, which applies to all of the company's digital properties, had already granted the publisher a broad license to use user content. However, the new language for ArsTechnica goes further by explicitly enumerating a long list of permissible actions—including reproduction, modification, editing, cropping, adaptation, translation, enhancement, reformatting, remixing, rearrangement, resizing, creating derivative works, moving, removing, deleting, erasing, reverse-engineering, storing, caching, aggregating, publishing, posting, displaying, distributing, broadcasting, performing, transmitting, renting, selling, sharing, sublicensing, syndicating, or otherwise providing to others—all on or in connection with the service or its promotion. Perhaps most notably, the license is described as royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, unrestricted, and worldwide, and it extends to any medium now existing or developed in the future.

To understand the significance of this amendment, it is necessary to step back and examine the broader context of user agreements in the digital ecosystem. Nearly every major online platform—from social media giants like Facebook and Twitter to content-sharing sites like YouTube and Reddit—includes similar provisions in their terms of service. These clauses are designed to allow platforms to legally host, display, and promote the content that users generate, without which the services could not function. For example, if a user uploads a photo to Instagram, Instagram needs a license to store that photo on its servers, display it to other users, and potentially feature it in a promotional campaign. The practical necessity of such licenses is rarely disputed. However, the breadth and duration of these grants have become a flashpoint for controversy, particularly when platforms exercise rights beyond simple hosting—such as selling user data, using content for training artificial intelligence models, or repurposing content in ways the original creator never intended.

The new ArsTechnica clause addresses one of the most common criticisms of such agreements: the lack of clarity regarding whether the license extends to commercial uses independent of the service. By adding the phrase "on or in connection with the Service, or the promotion thereof," Condé Nast explicitly ties the license to the operation and marketing of the platform itself. This language, while still broad, is generally considered more protective of user interests than a fully unrestricted license, because it limits the company's ability to sell or sublicense content for purposes unrelated to ArsTechnica. For instance, Condé Nast could not, under this clause, take a blog comment from ArsTechnica and sell it to a third-party advertiser for a billboard campaign unconnected to the site—unless that sale somehow promoted ArsTechnica. The distinction, though subtle, is crucial for creators who worry about their work being exploited outside the context of the original publication.

Despite this limitation, the license remains extraordinarily powerful. It is perpetual and irrevocable, meaning that even if a user deletes their account or removes a specific piece of content, Condé Nast retains the right to continue using that content as permitted by the agreement. This aligns with standard industry practice, but it often surprises users who assume that deleting their post erases all traces of it from the platform's databases and legal rights. Moreover, the inclusion of the right to "create derivative works" and "reverse-engineer" content raises potential privacy and security concerns. Reverse engineering might be invoked if a user uploads software code or proprietary data, though in practice, it is likely intended to cover activities like troubleshooting, spam detection, or security auditing. Still, the lack of specificity leaves room for interpretation, which can be unsettling for users who value control over their intellectual property.

To further contextualize this development, it is helpful to examine the history of such user agreements in the media industry. In the early days of the internet, most news websites operated under simple "all rights reserved" terms, often requiring explicit written permission for any reuse of content. As user comments, forums, and photo uploads became integral to digital journalism, publishers gradually shifted to more permissive licensing models. The turning point came with the rise of user-generated content in the mid-2000s, when sites like YouTube and Blogger popularized the "non-exclusive royalty-free license" as the default. Condé Nast, which owns prestigious brands such as The New Yorker, Vogue, and Wired, adopted a similar approach for its network. However, each brand maintained its own terms, leading to inconsistencies. The amendment for ArsTechnica may be part of a broader effort to harmonize policies across the company's portfolio, or it might be a targeted response to specific legal or business needs of that particular site.

From a legal perspective, the amendment also touches on the concept of "consideration" in contract law. By allowing users to retain ownership of their content (as explicitly stated in the new clause: "you or the owner of any Content ... retains ownership of all rights, title, and interests in such Content"), Condé Nast provides a clear benefit to users that may help enforce the agreement in court. When a platform merely claims an unrestricted license without acknowledging user ownership, courts sometimes find the contract unconscionable or overly one-sided. By spelling out that users keep their rights, Condé Nast strengthens its legal position that the agreement is a mutual exchange: users grant a license in return for access to the service and the audience it provides. This approach mirrors that of many successful platforms and is likely to withstand legal scrutiny if challenged.

For content creators—bloggers, photographers, journalists, and commenters—who use ArsTechnica, the amendment carries practical implications. If you post a detailed technical analysis or a witty remark on an article, you are granting Condé Nast the right to edit, remix, or even transform your contribution into a different medium, such as a video, infographic, or podcast, without asking for further permission or paying you. While this might seem alarming, it is important to note that most platforms already operate under similar terms. The key difference here is the specificity and the explicit tie to promotional purposes. ArsTechnica, known for its in-depth coverage of technology, cybersecurity, and science, likely relies heavily on community engagement and user-contributed comments, suggestions, and tips. The new license enables the company to repurpose that community input to enhance the site's features, such as compiling best-of-comment sections, using quotes in promotional materials, or analyzing user feedback to improve editorial coverage.

The amendment also raises broader questions about the power dynamics between content creators and media corporations. In an era where platforms increasingly monetize user data and engagement, the ability to unilaterally update terms of service has become a routine practice. Users typically agree to these changes by continuing to use the site, a process known as "browsewrap" or "clickwrap" consent. Critics argue that such agreements lack meaningful negotiation and often bury important details in dense legal language. The Condé Nast amendment, while relatively clear compared to many terms of service, still employs complex phrasing that the average user may not fully understand. This is not unusual—surveys consistently show that a minority of users read the full terms of service before clicking "agree." Nevertheless, for those who do parse the fine print, the changes at ArsTechnica signal a corporate desire for maximum flexibility in leveraging user contributions, even as it formally acknowledges user ownership.

In the broader media landscape, this amendment arrives amid heightened scrutiny of how tech and publishing companies treat creator rights. Recent debates over the use of user-generated content to train generative AI models have put such licensing clauses under the microscope. While Condé Nast has not explicitly stated that user content will be used for AI training, the broad language of the amendment could potentially encompass that activity, provided it is "on or in connection with the Service or the promotion thereof." Some platforms, like Reddit and X (formerly Twitter), have already modified their terms to allow the use of user content for AI development, sparking backlash from users. Condé Nast's approach—tying the license to the service and its promotion—may be a strategic middle ground, allowing for innovative uses while theoretically limiting exploitation for external commercial ventures unrelated to ArsTechnica.

Ultimately, the amendment to the Condé Nast User Agreement for ArsTechnica.com is a small but significant update in the ongoing evolution of digital contracts. It reflects the delicate balancing act that media companies must perform between fostering vibrant online communities and protecting their own business interests. For users, the change serves as a reminder that every post, comment, or upload carries legal weight, and that the fine print of a user agreement can have lasting implications for intellectual property rights. As the line between content creator and consumer continues to blur, such updates will likely become more frequent, demanding that users remain vigilant and informed about the terms under which they share their work online. The ArsTechnica amendment, while specific to one site, offers a window into the broader trends shaping the future of digital publishing and the legal frameworks that govern it.

For those who wish to retain full control over their contributions, the agreement itself offers practical advice: "you should make copies of or otherwise back-up any and all Content, personal data or communications you post." This cautious recommendation underscores the reality that once content is shared on a platform like ArsTechnica, the original creator may no longer have the final say in how it is used. The new license ensures that Condé Nast can adapt and promote that content as it sees fit, within the context of the service, for as long as the company deems necessary. As the digital landscape evolves, so too will the agreements that shape our interactions online, and this amendment is a clear signal that media conglomerates are prepared to adjust their terms to meet the demands of an increasingly complex and interconnected world.

Source: Ars Technica News

Wilcox spoke before an engaged audience, emphasizing that Bitcoin no longer holds up as the cypherpunk‑grade money it was originally meant to be. He argued that the original vision of Bitcoin as a decentralized, censorship‑resistant currency has been diluted by scaling compromises and a lack of native privacy. Zcash, he said, aims to restore that vision by integrating quantum resistance and massive scaling improvements simultaneously.

Quantum Resistance: Why It Matters Now

The threat of quantum computers to current public‑key cryptography is well documented. Algorithms such as SHA‑256 and ECDSA, which underpin most blockchains, could be broken by sufficiently powerful quantum machines, allowing attackers to derive private keys from public addresses. While large‑scale quantum computers are not yet operational, the timeline for their arrival is accelerating. Projects like Zcash are proactively hardening their protocols to ensure that funds remain secure even after quantum supremacy is achieved.

Zcash’s plan includes two phases. In the short term, quantum‑recoverable wallets will allow users to regain access to funds if their private keys are compromised by a quantum attack. This is achieved through a hybrid cryptographic scheme that combines existing Sapling and Orchard privacy protocols with lattice‑based cryptography, which is believed to be quantum‑resistant. Within 12–18 months, the entire Zcash network will migrate to a fully post‑quantum proof of stake, meaning all transactions, addresses, and shielded pools will be secured by quantum‑safe algorithms.

Scaling to Visa‑Level Throughput

Quantum resistance alone would be a headline‑worthy upgrade, but Zcash is simultaneously pursuing a massive scaling initiative. Wilcox indicated that the network aims to achieve throughput comparable to Visa and Mastercard, handling tens of thousands of transactions per second. This would be accomplished through a combination of sharding, layer‑2 solutions, and optimized consensus mechanisms.

Currently, Zcash processes about 10–15 transactions per second, limited by its proof‑of‑work consensus and the computational overhead of shielded transactions. The new roadmap proposes a shift to proof‑of‑stake, which not only reduces energy consumption but also enables faster block times and higher capacity. Wilcox noted that discussions are underway to cut block times from 75 seconds to around 10 seconds, and to introduce token‑holder voting on protocol upgrades.

These changes are designed to make Zcash viable for everyday payments, not just as a store of value. The goal is a cryptocurrency that can be used at point‑of‑sale terminals, online checkouts, and cross‑border transfers without sacrificing privacy or security.

Market Rally and Institutional Interest

The quantum‑proof and scaling announcements have already had a dramatic effect on the market. ZEC, the native token of the Zcash network, has rallied 110% over the past 30 days, outperforming nearly every major cryptocurrency. The surge was triggered by a large investment from Multicoin Capital, a prominent crypto venture firm known for backing privacy and infrastructure projects. Multicoin’s involvement signals growing institutional confidence in Zcash’s technical direction and its potential to capture a share of the privacy coin market.

Privacy coins have faced regulatory headwinds in recent years, with exchanges delisting Monero, Zcash, and others due to concerns about illicit use. However, Wilcox argued that privacy is a fundamental right and that regulated compliance is achievable through selective disclosure features built into Zcash. The “shielded” addresses allow users to choose when to reveal transaction details to auditors or regulators, striking a balance between privacy and transparency.

Adoption via Cross‑Chain Swaps and Near Intents

Adoption of Zcash’s private features is also being driven by new cross‑chain interoperability tools. The Near Intents framework, developed by the NEAR Protocol team, enables seamless swaps between assets on different blockchains. Zcash has integrated with Near Intents to allow users to convert other cryptocurrencies into shielded ZEC without leaving the Zcash ecosystem. This has significantly lowered the barrier for new users who hold assets on Ethereum, Solana, or other networks to experience private transactions.

Data from on‑chain analysis shows that the shielded pool now holds approximately 30% of the total circulating supply of ZEC. That is a substantial increase from just a few years ago, when most ZEC was held in transparent wallets. The growth of the shielded pool indicates that users are actively choosing privacy, even when it requires higher transaction fees and longer confirmation times. Wilcox noted that the upcoming upgrades will reduce the cost and latency of shielded transactions, making them competitive with transparent ones.

Historical Context and Future Outlook

Zcash launched in October 2016 as a fork of Bitcoin, but with a focus on privacy through zero‑knowledge proofs (zk‑SNARKs). Its shielded transactions hide the sender, recipient, and amount from the public ledger. Over the years, Zcash has undergone multiple upgrades, including the activation of Sapling (2018) and Orchard (2022), which improved performance and privacy.

The quantum‑proof roadmap represents the most ambitious technical overhaul since the network’s inception. It addresses a long‑standing criticism that privacy coins are fragile against future cryptanalytic attacks. By moving to post‑quantum cryptography, Zcash aims to future‑proof its users’ financial privacy.

Other cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin and Ethereum, are also exploring quantum resistance, but none have announced such a concrete timeline. Bitcoin developers have debated post‑quantum signature schemes for years without a unified plan. Ethereum’s transition to proof‑of‑stake did not include quantum hardening. This puts Zcash in a unique position to lead the industry toward quantum‑safe digital money.

Wilcox also addressed the competition from newer privacy protocols such as Aleo, Iron Fish, and Namada. He acknowledged that each has its strengths, but argued that Zcash’s longevity, deep liquidity, and proven zero‑knowledge technology give it an enduring advantage. The upcoming scaling improvements, he said, will make Zcash the only privacy coin that can handle global retail volumes while remaining quantum‑proof.

Looking ahead, Zcash’s development team is working on a new governance model that would give ZEC holders a direct vote on critical protocol changes. This move toward decentralization is intended to prevent contentious forks and ensure that the community can adapt quickly to emerging threats. The first vote on block time reduction is expected later this year.

The combination of quantum resistance, massive scaling, and token‑holder governance could position Zcash as the leading platform for private, secure, and scalable transactions in the post‑quantum era. While the immediate focus is on the wallet rollout and the proof‑of‑stake transition, the long‑term vision is a global payment network that respects user privacy without compromising on speed or security.

Source: Coindesk News

The panel, titled 'Onchain Privacy and Identity,' brought together Rajeev Bamra, a strategist at Moody's Ratings, and Pauline Shangett, Chief Compliance Officer at ChangeNOW. They explored how the crypto ecosystem can evolve to meet both the privacy expectations of users and the compliance requirements of regulators. The discussion comes at a time when institutional interest in digital assets is surging, yet many institutions remain hesitant due to concerns about transparency and legal risk.

Institutional digital finance: growth and scale

Bamra opened the discussion by highlighting the rapid growth of institutional digital finance. Over the past 18 months, he noted, the sector has expanded by 'over 100 or 150 percent.' This growth reflects increasing adoption by traditional financial firms, including banks, asset managers, and insurance companies, which are exploring tokenized assets, stablecoins, and decentralized lending platforms. However, Bamra also provided a sobering context: the current size of institutional digital finance is roughly $35 billion. For comparison, traditional clearing flows exceed $200 trillion. In other words, while the growth rate is impressive, the absolute value remains a tiny fraction of the global financial system.

This gap highlights both the potential and the challenges ahead. For digital finance to truly integrate with mainstream markets, it must overcome hurdles related to scalability, security, and—crucially—regulatory compliance. Privacy and accountability are at the heart of that challenge. Regulators demand the ability to trace transactions to prevent money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit activities. Users, on the other hand, expect that their personal financial data will not be exposed to the public. The solution, according to the panelists, lies in thoughtful system design.

Hybrid blockchain architecture: the best of both worlds

One approach gaining traction is hybrid blockchain architecture, which combines elements of public and private blockchains. In a hybrid system, certain data can be kept off-chain or encrypted, while other data remains transparent for verification. This allows institutions to maintain privacy for sensitive business information while still enabling regulators or auditors to access the data through permissioned channels. Bamra noted that Moody's has been exploring how hybrid models can be used to rate the creditworthiness of tokenized assets without exposing proprietary trading strategies.

For example, a hybrid blockchain might record only hashes of transactions on the public ledger, with the full details stored on a private, permissioned chain. When a regulator requests information, the relevant participants can reveal the decryption keys or grant access to the private chain. This approach preserves the immutability and security of the public ledger while providing the privacy that businesses require. It is not a new concept, but it has gained urgency as more traditional institutions enter the crypto space.

Address-level monitoring vs. identity mapping

Pauline Shangett of ChangeNOW offered a complementary perspective from the exchange side. ChangeNOW is a non-custodial cryptocurrency exchange that allows users to swap coins without creating an account. This model inherently protects user privacy, but it also raises compliance challenges. To address this, Shangett explained that ChangeNOW uses address-level monitoring rather than identity-based tracking. Instead of asking for personal information like a name or passport, the platform monitors wallet addresses for suspicious activity.

'We map wallet addresses, not identities,' Shangett said. 'This allows us to respond to compliance and law-enforcement needs without compromising the privacy of our users.' She emphasized that this approach is both practical and effective. By analyzing onchain data—transactions, timestamps, and linkages—ChangeNOW can flag addresses that appear to be associated with scams, hacks, or other illicit activities. When law enforcement requests information about a particular transaction, the exchange can provide the relevant address details without having collected any personal data.

This method aligns with a growing trend in the crypto industry: using blockchain intelligence tools to maintain compliance while respecting privacy. Companies like Chainalysis and Elliptic have built businesses around analyzing onchain data. The key insight is that accountability does not require full transparency. As Shangett put it, 'You can have privacy and still be accountable if you design the system correctly.'

Regulatory context and the path forward

The United States and other jurisdictions are still developing comprehensive regulatory frameworks for digital assets. The European Union's Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation, for example, includes provisions for both transparency and privacy. In the U.S., agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are grappling with how to apply existing securities and commodities laws to crypto. The panel at Consensus Miami suggested that solutions like hybrid architectures and address-level monitoring could help bridge the gap between innovation and regulation.

Bamra pointed to Moody's recent work on rating tokenized money market funds, such as those launched by Fidelity and BlackRock. These funds issue tokens that represent shares in the underlying money market. To assign a credit rating, Moody's needs to verify the assets and track their movement, but it does not necessarily need to know the identity of every token holder. This is where hybrid architecture shines: the fund can publish a hash of its holdings on a public blockchain, while the full list of assets is maintained privately and shared with the rating agency.

'We are seeing that institutional adoption is possible without sacrificing either transparency or privacy,' Bamra said. He noted that the growth in institutional digital finance has been concentrated in highly regulated products, such as securities tokens and stablecoins. As the market matures, he expects hybrid models to become the norm for most institutional use cases.

Challenges and criticisms

Not everyone agrees that hybrid architectures and address-level monitoring are sufficient. Privacy advocates argue that any form of monitoring, even at the address level, can eventually lead to de-anonymization. With enough onchain analysis, it is possible to cluster addresses and infer identities. Shangett acknowledged this risk but noted that ChangeNOW's system is designed to minimize data collection. 'We never ask for personal information unless required by law, and even then, we only share what is necessary,' she said.

Another challenge is the scalability of these solutions. Hybrid blockchains can be more complex to operate, and address-level monitoring requires sophisticated software. Smaller exchanges and projects may lack the resources to implement them. However, the panelists expressed optimism that open-source tools and industry standards would make these technologies more accessible over time.

Historical context is also relevant. The debate over privacy versus transparency in finance predates blockchain by decades. In traditional banking, privacy is protected by bank secrecy laws, but institutions are required to report suspicious activity to authorities. The crypto industry is essentially building a new system from scratch, which allows it to experiment with novel solutions. The panelists at Consensus Miami believe that the lessons learned from early experiments will inform the next generation of onchain infrastructure.

As the panel concluded, both Bamra and Shangett emphasized that the goal is not to create a completely anonymous or completely transparent system. Instead, it is to build a system that can adapt to different needs: allowing users to control what they share while enabling institutions to meet their compliance obligations. In the words of Shangett, 'Privacy and accountability are not opposites. They are two sides of the same coin, and we have the tools to balance them.'

Source: Coindesk News

Buterin, who has spent months campaigning for encrypted mempools as a solution to MEV exploitation, executed a routine transaction: swapping a small amount of XDB for ETH. The transaction was instantly spotted by the bot, which front-ran it by buying XDB ahead of Buterin’s order, driving up the price, then selling the tokens immediately after Buterin’s trade completed at an inflated price. This three-step process—commonly called a sandwich attack—allows the bot to profit at the expense of the original trader.

The incident occurred on the Ethereum mainnet and was first flagged by blockchain analytics firm Arkham Intelligence. According to on-chain data, the jaredfromsubway.eth bot spent 400 WETH (approximately $1.14 million at the time) to execute the sandwich. The profit to the bot was modest—roughly $3,000—but the attack demonstrates how even a token swap worth just a few dollars can trigger sophisticated MEV bots scanning the public mempool for any arbitrage opportunity.

What Is MEV and Why Does It Matter?

Maximal extractable value refers to the profit block producers (miners or validators) and bots can extract by reordering, including, or excluding transactions within a block. MEV encompasses strategies like front-running, back-running, sandwich attacks, and liquidity pool manipulations. While some forms of MEV, like arbitrage, can stabilize markets, toxic MEV—such as sandwich attacks—harms regular users by causing slippage and higher transaction costs.

Buterin has been a leading critic of toxic MEV. In multiple blog posts and public appearances, he has argued that MEV can undermine Ethereum’s decentralization and fairness. He has specifically advocated for encrypted mempools, where transactions are encrypted until they are included in a block, preventing bots from seeing and exploiting pending trades. This concept is part of Ethereum’s 2026 roadmap, with proposals like “account abstraction” and “single-slot finality” being explored.

The JaredfromSubway Bot: Ethereum’s Most Notorious MEV Operator

The jaredfromsubway.eth bot is one of the most active and well-known MEV bots on Ethereum. It operates primarily on Ethereum and has been linked to thousands of sandwich attacks since its creation in 2022. The bot’s name is a playful reference to the Jared Subway sandwich chain mascot, but its operations are serious business. According to data from MEV-explorer tools, jaredfromsubway.eth has extracted over $10 million in profits from sandwich attacks alone, often targeting small retail trades that would otherwise appear unattractive.

The bot’s success hinges on its ability to quickly scan the mempool, estimate the slippage of a pending trade, and execute its own trades—all within a single Ethereum block. It uses advanced algorithms and high-speed infrastructure to outpace other bots and human traders. The fact that it targeted Buterin’s transaction, despite the small size, shows that no trade is too insignificant to escape its notice.

Buterin’s Campaign Against MEV

Ethereum’s transition from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake in 2022 brought changes to the MEV landscape. Under proof-of-work, miners could reorder transactions, leading to the rise of MEV. With proof-of-stake, validators gained similar power, but the introduction of proposer-builder separation (PBS) and MEV-boost changed the dynamics. However, bots like jaredfromsubway.eth continued to operate through private relay networks and flashbots bundles, often working with validators to include their transactions.

Buterin has consistently argued that the ultimate solution lies in encrypting transaction data until inclusion. In his 2024 blog post “What Do We Want from MEV?”, he outlined three pillars: confidentiality (encrypted mempools), transparency (public disclosure of MEV extraction), and regulation (protocol-level constraints). He has also supported projects like Flashbots’ SUAVE, which aims to decentralize MEV extraction.

The fact that Buterin himself became a victim of a sandwich attack is a powerful anecdote that he may use to rally support for encrypted mempools. It demonstrates that even the most vocal critics are not immune to the current system’s inefficiencies.

Reaction from the Crypto Community

News of the attack spread quickly on social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter). Some users expressed amusement at the irony, while others used it to highlight the urgent need for MEV reform. David Vorick, a blockchain researcher, tweeted: “Vitalik just got sandwiched. If that doesn’t convince people that we need encrypted mempools, nothing will.” Others pointed out that the bot earned only $3,000 from the attack, suggesting that even small profits incentivize the constant scanning of the mempool.

The incident also reignited debates about whether Ethereum’s current infrastructure can support a fair trading environment. Some critics argue that Ethereum’s high gas fees and MEV issues are pushing users toward alternative chains like Solana and Arbitrum, which have different designs that mitigate certain forms of MEV. However, Ethereum’s developer community remains committed to tackling the problem at the protocol level.

Technical Details of the Attack

According to blockchain data from Etherscan and Dune Analytics, the attack unfolded as follows:

• Buterin sent a transaction swapping XDB for ETH on Uniswap, which was broadcasted to the public mempool at 14:23 UTC on April 30.
• The jaredfromsubway.eth bot detected the pending transaction almost instantly and created two transactions of its own: a buy order for XDB ahead of Buterin’s transaction and a sell order immediately after.
• The bot used 400 WETH (worth $1.14 million) as liquidity to manipulate the XDB/ETH pool on SushiSwap and Uniswap. The buy order drove the effective price of XDB up by approximately 2%.
• Buterin’s transaction executed at the inflated price, resulting in a slippage loss of roughly $150 for Buterin.
• The bot then sold its XDB holdings at the higher price, netting a profit of $3,000 after accounting for gas fees and slippage.

While $150 is a trivial amount for a billionaire like Buterin, the attack underscores how MEV bots can profit off any trade, regardless of size. The bot itself spent $1.14 million to execute the sandwich—a sum that would be risky if the price moved against it. However, the bot’s algorithms likely calculated a low-risk scenario given the limited volatility of XDB/ETH at that moment.

Broader Implications for Crypto

This incident is more than just a humorous footnote. It serves as a real-world example of the challenges facing decentralized exchanges (DEXs) and the broader DeFi ecosystem. DEXs like Uniswap and SushiSwap pride themselves on being permissionless and trustless, but the lack of privacy in transaction ordering exposes users to front-running. While solutions like private RPC endpoints and Flashbots’ “Order Flow Auctions” exist, they are not yet standardized or fully decentralized.

Buterin has long argued that the solution is at the protocol level. Encrypted mempools, which are part of the Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP) process under EIP-7691 and related proposals, would encrypt pending transactions so that only validators can see them at the moment of inclusion. This would effectively end most forms of MEV exploitation, as bots would no longer be able to see the order of transactions or their contents.

However, implementing encrypted mempools raises technical challenges. Validators would need to confirm the validity of encrypted transactions without decrypting them, which requires zero-knowledge proofs or trusted execution environments (TEEs). Additionally, encrypted mempools could inadvertently hinder other positive uses of mempool data, such as arbitrage that stabilizes prices. The Ethereum community is still debating the trade-offs.

Looking Ahead

Ethereum’s development roadmap for 2026 includes several initiatives aimed at reducing MEV. The “Surge” phase focuses on scaling through rollups, while “Verge” introduces layer-2 designs. But the “Scourge” phase explicitly targets MEV and censorship resistance. Encrypted mempools are a key component of the Scourge, though they are still in research and testing stages.

The JaredfromSubway bot sandwich on Buterin may serve as a catalyst for accelerating these developments. If even the co-founder of Ethereum cannot escape MEV, then the system clearly needs fixing. Buterin has not yet publicly commented on the specific incident, but given his history of advocating for MEV reforms, he is likely to use this as a concrete example in future discussions.

In the meantime, traders can protect themselves by using private transaction relay services like MEV Blocker or Flashbots Protect, which bundle transactions directly to block builders and bypass the public mempool. However, these services are not fully trustless and require users to trust the relay operator. For many retail users, the existence of MEV bots remains an abstract concern—until they become a victim themselves.

The sandwich attack on Vitalik Buterin is a reminder that in decentralized finance, even the most sophisticated users are not immune to the dark side of permissionless innovation. As Ethereum continues to evolve, the battle between MEV extractors and those seeking fair markets will shape the future of the entire crypto ecosystem.

Source: Coindesk News

At Consensus Miami 2026, Blockstream CEO Adam Back delivered a compelling argument for Bitcoin's supremacy in the decentralized finance space, not through complexity but through security. With a series of high-profile DeFi exploits shaking confidence in Ethereum-based platforms, Back asserted that institutional investors are increasingly turning to Bitcoin's simpler, battle-tested infrastructure as the safer bet for digital asset custody and financial applications.

The conference, which drew thousands of attendees from across the crypto and traditional finance worlds, saw Back take the stage to outline his vision for the next phase of Bitcoin adoption. His message was clear: the 'DeFi security war' is being won by Bitcoin, not because of advanced smart contract capabilities, but because of its unwavering commitment to security and decentralization.

Key Facts

• Adam Back stated that recent DeFi exploits are reinforcing institutional preference for Bitcoin’s simpler, security-focused infrastructure.
• He argued that Bitcoin layer-2 systems can support tokenization and decentralized finance without sacrificing Bitcoin’s conservative design philosophy.
• Back predicted the next major adoption wave will come through institutional portfolio allocations, sovereign entities, and pension funds gaining bitcoin exposure.

Back’s comments come at a time when the DeFi ecosystem has been plagued by hacks and vulnerabilities. According to data from various security firms, losses from DeFi exploits in 2025 alone exceeded $3 billion, with high-profile incidents involving protocols such as Euler Finance, Wormhole, and Nomad Bridge. These events have eroded trust among institutional investors who were already cautious about the regulatory and technical risks of decentralized finance.

In contrast, Bitcoin has maintained an impeccable security record over its 16-year history. While individual wallets and exchanges have been hacked, the Bitcoin network itself has never been compromised at the protocol level. This track record is a powerful selling point for Back and other advocates of Bitcoin-first finance.

Adam Back: A Pioneer’s Perspective

Adam Back is no stranger to the crypto industry. As the inventor of Hashcash—the proof-of-work system that inspired Bitcoin’s mining mechanism—he has been a foundational figure in the space since the 1990s. He founded Blockstream in 2014, a company dedicated to advancing Bitcoin’s capabilities through sidechains, the Lightning Network, and other layer-2 technologies. At Consensus Miami 2026, he brought both historical authority and technical expertise to the debate.

Back has long been a vocal critic of the complexity and security risks associated with Ethereum and other smart contract platforms. He often contrasts Bitcoin’s deliberately limited scripting language with the Turing-complete environments of Ethereum, which, while enabling innovation, also open the door to countless attack vectors. “Security is not a feature you can bolt on later,” Back said during his talk. “It has to be architected from the ground up. Bitcoin was designed with security as the absolute priority, and that’s why it remains the most trusted digital asset.”

The Institutional Shift

The audience at Consensus included representatives from some of the world’s largest asset managers, sovereign wealth funds, and pension funds. Back’s message resonated strongly with this demographic. He outlined three pillars that would drive the next wave of Bitcoin adoption: sovereign entities diversifying foreign reserves, pension funds seeking inflation hedges, and corporate treasuries allocating cash to Bitcoin as a store of value.

Recent developments support this outlook. Several sovereign wealth funds, including those from Norway and Singapore, have already disclosed small allocations to Bitcoin. In the corporate sector, companies like MicroStrategy and Block continue to add to their bitcoin holdings, and the trend is spreading to smaller firms. Back predicted that the total addressable market for institutional Bitcoin investment could reach $10 trillion over the next decade, up from roughly $200 billion today.

However, institutional adoption requires infrastructure that meets regulatory and operational requirements. This is where Back sees Bitcoin layer-2 solutions playing a critical role. He argued that sidechains like Liquid, developed by Blockstream, and protocols built on the Lightning Network can enable tokenization of real-world assets, private transactions, and even complex financial instruments—all while benefiting from Bitcoin’s underlying security.

Layer-2 Solutions: The Best of Both Worlds

Back’s vision for Bitcoin DeFi does not involve replicating the Ethereum model. Instead, he advocates for a layered architecture where the base layer remains simple and secure, while second-layer networks handle scalability and programmability. The Liquid Network, for instance, allows for the issuance of assets such as stablecoins, security tokens, and other digital representations of value. It uses a federated model with trusted functionaries, but Back insists that this trade-off is acceptable for many institutional use cases.

“Institutions don’t need global, trustless, public smart contracts to run a bond issuance or a stablecoin program,” Back explained. “They need auditability, settlement finality, and regulatory compliance. Liquid provides that without exposing the entire network to the risk of a single exploit taking down billions of dollars.”

Critics argue that Bitcoin’s layer-2 solutions are still too nascent and lack the vibrant ecosystem of Ethereum-based applications. Back counters that the quality of applications matters more than quantity, and that Bitcoin’s security-first approach will ultimately attract more capital even if it takes longer to develop.

The recent exploits in Ethereum DeFi have only strengthened Back’s argument. For example, the $625 million Ronin Bridge hack, one of the largest in crypto history, exploited a vulnerability in a sidechain that processed transactions for the Axie Infinity game. While that sidechain was built to scale a particular application, its narrower validator set introduced risks. In contrast, Bitcoin’s main chain is secured by thousands of independent miners and has never been successfully attacked at the consensus level.

Historical Context: The Evolution of DeFi and Security

To understand why Back’s message is gaining traction, it helps to review the evolution of decentralized finance. The term “DeFi” was coined in 2018 with the launch of projects like MakerDAO and Uniswap. Since then, the total value locked (TVL) in DeFi protocols has surged from less than $1 billion to a peak of over $200 billion in late 2021. However, the growth has been accompanied by a corresponding rise in hacks and exploits. The decentralized nature of these platforms often means that there is no central authority to reverse fraudulent transactions or compensate victims.

Bitcoin, by contrast, has always taken a conservative approach to innovation. Back himself has been a key figure in this philosophy. He contributed to the development of Bitcoin’s codebase in the early years and has consistently advocated for slow, deliberate changes. The Taproot upgrade in 2021 was a major step forward, enabling more complex smart contracts and improved privacy, but it was implemented after years of review and testing.

The contrast becomes sharper when examining the regulatory landscape. Bitcoin has largely escaped classification as a security, while many DeFi tokens have faced enforcement actions from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This regulatory clarity makes Bitcoin more attractive to institutional investors who need to comply with strict compliance guidelines.

The Road Ahead: Sovereign Adoption

Back’s prediction that sovereign entities will join the next adoption wave is already taking shape. El Salvador was the first country to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender in 2021, and while its experience has been mixed, other nations have shown interest. In 2025, the Central African Republic made Bitcoin legal tender, and there are reports that several other developing economies are considering similar moves. More importantly, sovereign wealth funds are starting to view Bitcoin as a legitimate reserve asset. For example, the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund has indirect exposure through investments in companies that hold Bitcoin, and some analysts expect direct purchases in the near future.

Back also noted that pension funds, which manage trillions of dollars in assets, are beginning to explore small allocations to Bitcoin. The high returns and low correlation with traditional assets make Bitcoin an attractive portfolio diversifier. However, the due diligence required by pension funds often focuses on security, custody, and regulatory compliance—areas where Bitcoin excels compared to more experimental DeFi platforms.

Competing Visions: Ethereum and Beyond

While Back remains steadfast in his Bitcoin-only focus, the broader crypto industry is moving toward multi-chain interoperability. Ethereum is undergoing a major transition to sharding as part of its “surge” roadmap, aiming to achieve massive scalability without sacrificing decentralization. Other layer-1 networks like Solana and Avalanche are also vying for market share. But Back is skeptical that these platforms can match Bitcoin’s security standards. “Every additional feature and complexity introduces new attack surfaces,” he warned. “The crypto industry has a bad habit of prioritizing speed and convenience over security, and that habit is coming back to haunt us.”

His comments reflect a broader sentiment among Bitcoin maximalists, but even some Ethereum supporters acknowledge that the DeFi sector has a security problem. Several initiatives, such as insurance protocols and formal verification tools, are being developed to mitigate risks. However, Back believes that the fundamental architecture of Bitcoin is superior for long-term value storage and settlement.

Live Demonstration and Audience Reaction

During his presentation, Back also demonstrated a new feature of the Liquid Network that allows for confidential transactions, where the amounts and assets involved are hidden from the public ledger but still verifiable by auditors. This is a key requirement for many institutions that seek privacy in their transactions without giving up regulatory transparency. The audience responded with enthusiastic applause, signaling strong interest from potential users.

Following the session, several attendees expressed their agreement with Back’s analysis. A representative from a European pension fund noted that the fund had already started a pilot program using Liquid for tokenized bond settlements. “Security is non-negotiable for us,” the representative said in an interview. “Bitcoin’s layer-2 solutions give us the best of both worlds.”

Back’s appearance at Consensus Miami 2026 is part of a broader campaign by Blockstream to position Bitcoin as the backbone of a new financial system. The company has been working on projects such as Blockstream Mining Notes, a product that allows smaller investors to access Bitcoin mining hash rate through security tokens. It also operates one of the largest Bitcoin mining pools, and its sidechain technology is used by several licensed digital asset exchanges.

As DeFi continues to mature, the debate between security-first and innovation-first approaches will intensify. Back’s vision suggests that the market will ultimately reward the most reliable infrastructure—and that Bitcoin is well-positioned to meet the needs of the largest capital allocators. Whether other blockchain networks can close the security gap remains to be seen, but for now, the sentiment at Consensus Miami 2026 was clear: Bitcoin is winning the security war by staying true to its original design principles.

Source: Coindesk News

Pruden's remarks come at a critical juncture. While quantum computers powerful enough to break Bitcoin's elliptic curve cryptography are not yet operational, the lead time required to deploy a new signature scheme across the entire network is substantial. 'The asymmetry between acting today on a post-quantum signature scheme and waiting for full hardware clarity is significant,' Pruden said. 'If we wait until the threat is imminent, we will be too late.'

The Taproot Comparison

Taproot, Bitcoin's first major upgrade since SegWit, was activated in November 2021 after roughly five years of development and testing. It introduced Schnorr signatures and MAST, enhancing privacy and efficiency. However, Taproot was opt-in: users and services could choose to adopt it at their own pace. Pruden stressed that a post-quantum migration is fundamentally different.

'Every single bitcoin user, wallet, and exchange will need to participate in a post-quantum migration to remain secure,' he explained. 'If a user does not move their coins to a quantum-resistant address, those coins become vulnerable to theft once a quantum attack becomes feasible. There is no opt-in; it is all or nothing.'

This requirement makes the upgrade exponentially more complex. Coordinating a global, decentralized network of exchanges, wallets, and individual users to migrate before a looming deadline presents logistical and communication challenges unlike any previous Bitcoin upgrade. The Taproot adoption took years; a post-quantum migration would require a similar or longer timeline, but with higher stakes.

Background on Quantum Computing and Bitcoin

Quantum computing leverages quantum mechanical phenomena such as superposition and entanglement to perform certain calculations far faster than classical computers. Shor's algorithm, developed in 1994, can efficiently solve the discrete logarithm problem and factor large integers, both of which underpin Bitcoin's security. Bitcoin uses elliptic curve digital signature algorithm (ECDSA) for transaction signatures. A sufficiently powerful quantum computer could derive private keys from public keys, enabling theft of funds.

The Bitcoin network currently relies on the security of 256-bit elliptic curve cryptography. To counter this threat, cryptographers have developed post-quantum cryptographic algorithms, such as lattice-based, hash-based, and code-based signatures. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has been running a multi-year process to standardize these algorithms, with several selected for eventual adoption.

Bitcoin's developer community has been researching post-quantum signatures for years. Proposals like BIP-?? (not yet finalized) suggest using winternitz one-time signatures or other schemes. However, the transition from research to production involves not only code but also economic and social consensus.

The Challenge of Universality

Pruden highlighted that the migration's universality is its most difficult aspect. 'Taproot was a nice-to-have for many users. Post-quantum is a must-have for all,' he said. 'We have to design a mechanism that encourages or even compels adoption. Otherwise, a significant portion of bitcoins could remain in vulnerable addresses.'

This raises the question of how to handle coins that are not moved to quantum-resistant addresses. Pruden, when asked for his personal view, expressed a controversial opinion. 'Recycling dormant quantum-vulnerable coins back into Bitcoin's supply curve would put me overall on the confiscation side,' he said. He emphasized that this is only his personal view and that the community and market would ultimately decide through whatever governance mechanisms emerge.

The debate over 'quantum confiscation' is volatile. Some argue that requiring migration is a form of seizure, undermining the principles of self-custody. Others contend that allowing vulnerable coins to remain threatens the entire network if they are stolen and used in attacks. The community will need to devise a solution that balances security with decentralization.

Timelines and Urgency

Pruden's call to action is rooted in timeline estimates. While no one knows when a quantum computer with enough stable qubits to break Bitcoin will exist, many experts predict a 10- to 20-year window. However, the migration itself may take a decade to implement, test, and deploy. 'We cannot afford to wait until we see a working quantum computer in a lab,' Pruden warned. 'By then, it will be too late to deploy the new scheme. Start now, test now, and be ready.'

Project Eleven, a company focused on Bitcoin scalability and security, has been actively developing post-quantum signature prototypes. Pruden hinted that they are ready to move to testnet implementations in the near future. He encouraged other developers and companies to collaborate rather than compete on this critical infrastructure.

The broader crypto industry is also starting to address quantum threats. Ethereum researchers are exploring similar signature upgrades, and several altcoins have already integrated post-quantum schemes. Bitcoin, with its larger market cap and more conservative development process, faces unique challenges.

Conclusion Avoidance

As the discussion at Consensus Miami concluded, Pruden reiterated that the time for research is over. 'We have enough knowledge. We have enough candidate algorithms. What we need now is commitment and execution.' The Bitcoin community will need to marshal its resources to tackle the hardest upgrade the network has ever faced, one that touches every single coin and every single user.

Source: Coindesk News

Hardware and Technology

The core of the forum lies in its hardware sections, starting with CPUs and overclocking. Here, over 78,000 threads and nearly 1.4 million messages cover everything from the latest processor architectures to extreme cooling techniques. A recent hot topic is the release of Geekbench 6, which has been calibrated against Intel's Core i7-12700, sparking debates about benchmark reliability and real-world performance. Members share their own scores, compare multi-core vs. single-core results, and discuss whether the new benchmark favors certain architectures.

Motherboards receive sustained attention with over 67,000 threads. A current discussion revolves around a DigiTimes report claiming motherboard manufacturers are in crisis—likely due to rising component costs and declining demand. Users analyze the report's implications for future platform launches and chipset features. Similarly, the graphics cards section (96,000 threads, 1.6 million messages) includes sub-forums dedicated to AMD and Nvidia. A provocative thread titled "Gamers Are Wrong About 1440p vs 1080p Benchmarking?" challenges conventional wisdom, with detailed comparisons of frame rates, visual fidelity, and the importance of GPU memory bandwidth.

Memory and storage discussions (22,600 threads) recently centered on RAM pricing trends. Members note global market fluctuations and speculate whether costs will continue to rise. Displays (11,200 threads) feature queries about OLED migration, with one user asking "What can I expect if I switch to OLED?" Responses cover burn-in risks, color accuracy, and HDR performance. Power supplies (6,000 threads) include troubleshooting threads like the HP Compaq 6005 Pro SFF that won't power on, demonstrating the forum's hands-on support culture.

Cases and cooling (46,900 threads) involve weight limit questions for motherboard-cooler combinations. Laptops (24,000 threads) are buzzing with a recommendation request for a $500 max budget, with members sharing refurbished options and performance trade-offs. Networking (54,600 threads) sees a hot thread about the FCC's proposed ban on foreign-manufactured routers, raising security and privacy concerns. Apple laptops and desktops (895 threads) include a simple yet common question: MacBook Air 13" or 15"?—with users weighing portability against screen real estate.

Peripherals and components (18,500 threads) feature a first-hand account of an inkjet tank printer (Epson ET-2950), plus sub-forums for headsets, mice, and keyboards. Computer building (314,100 threads, 2.5 million messages) is the largest hardware category, with sub-forums for pre-built desktops, barebones, Raspberry Pi, and home theater PCs. A typical recent thread asks for upgrade advice for an old PC, showcasing the community's willingness to dissect bottlenecks and suggest cost-effective improvements.

Consumer Electronics

Beyond pure PC hardware, the forum covers consumer electronics. Digital cameras and video (5,600 threads) includes the long-running "AT Shot of the Day" thread where members share photographs. Console gaming (11,900 threads) recently celebrated the Switch 2 launch with a thread titled "Goodbye Switch, Hello Switch 2!" Mobile devices (17,100 threads) discuss LTE/5G signal boosters, with practical advice on installation and carrier compatibility. Audio components (10,900 threads) help troubleshoot a party speaker that won't charge, while TVs (4,100 threads) debate solutions for a Panasonic Blu-ray player with an annoyingly short power adapter.

Software

Software categories are equally active. Windows section (101,100 threads) features a personal reflection on "Software dependence and fear of change" with discoveries about Quicken. Apple software (8,000 threads) includes a controversial thread: "RIP Hackintosh: MacOS 27 and later will only run on Apple Silicon (ARM64)"—members mourn the end of an era while debating the technical reasons. Open source (3,100 threads) highlights a Firefox bug where profiles appear nested inside other profiles. Operating systems (73,900 threads) discuss a serious root exploit affecting all Linux distributions shipped in the last nine years, with users sharing patches and mitigation strategies.

Programming (6,800 threads) finds excitement in the Apollo 11 computer code for command and lunar modules being extracted and made available online—a nostalgic dive into early software engineering. PC games (20,200 threads) host a general VR discussion thread that is active as of minutes ago. Distributed computing (40,900 threads) features the Pentathlon 2026 thread, where teams compete in various BOINC projects. Security (3,700 threads) raises alarm about a browser loading stored passwords in plain text in memory—a critical privacy issue.

Shopping

The shopping category is a deal-hunter's paradise. Hot Deals and Giveaways (125,300 threads, 1.7 million messages) list incredible bargains like a CPU + GPU combo (AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D and Gigabyte 5070ti) for $1265 at Newegg. Black Friday (91 threads) still contains last year's streaming deals, serving as a reference for future shopping.

Social and Other

Social sections provide community bonding. The OT Discussion Club (794,000 threads, 18.3 million messages) is the most active, with the "I just bought..." thread updated minutes ago. Politics and News (84,100 threads) covers global events like the Israel conflict. Ask a Technical Professional (8,400 threads) compiles a list of useful YouTube channels and websites for science learning. The Garage (20,800 threads) sees daily wrenching discussions, while Health and Fitness (6,900 threads) includes a member reflecting on 13 years of forum participation and emerging health issues. Home and Garden (2,400 threads) features a fresh home build thread with construction updates.

Finally, Forum Issues and Feedback (16,400 threads) allows users to suggest improvements, such as removing a persistent alert banner at the top of the page. This feedback loop helps maintain the platform's usability.

In summary, this forum cluster is a living encyclopedia of technology and lifestyle topics, driven by passionate members who share knowledge, celebrate deals, and build lasting online relationships. The depth of threads—from advanced overclocking to simple laptop recommendations—ensures that everyone from beginners to seasoned experts finds value and camaraderie.

Source: AnandTech Forums: Technology, Hardware, Software, and Deals News

This isn't a decision to make casually. The right partner amplifies your message across thousands of credible media channels, builds domain authority through high-quality backlinks, and positions your brand as an industry thought leader. The wrong one? It can drain your budget, dilute your messaging, and leave your brand buried on page four of search results.

This guide walks you through everything you need to know to choose the right PR companies with a clear-eyed focus on SEO authority, media reach, and long-term digital growth.

What PR Companies Actually Do (And Why It Matters for SEO)

Many business owners confuse PR with advertising. They're not the same. Where advertising buys attention, public relations earns it. A skilled public relations agency crafts narratives, builds media relationships, and secures organic placements that advertising simply cannot replicate.

But here's what makes modern PR even more powerful: it directly impacts your search engine rankings.

When a reputable news outlet, industry blog, or digital publication picks up your press release, they create backlinks to your website. Those backlinks are among the most valuable signals Google and other search engines use to assess domain authority. The more authoritative the publication linking to you, the more your own domain climbs in SERP rankings.

This is why press release distribution has become one of the smartest, most cost-effective SEO strategies available today. It's not just about getting your name in the news — it's about building a permanent digital footprint that compounds over time.

The Essential Criteria for Evaluating PR Firms

Not all PR firms are created equal. Before committing to any partner, you need to assess them against a clear set of criteria that align with your visibility and authority goals.

Distribution Network Reach

The most critical factor is how wide and how credible a firm's distribution network actually is. A genuine press release distribution company should have established relationships with national wire services, regional news outlets, industry-specific publications, and digital news aggregators.

Ask directly: How many outlets does your network include? Which top-tier publications are you connected to? Can you show me sample placements from similar clients?

SEO and Backlink Quality

Any online PR agency worth your investment should understand the SEO mechanics behind press release distribution. Look for agencies that prioritize placements on high-domain-authority (DA) websites. A single backlink from a DA 70+ news site is worth more than fifty placements on low-authority blogs.

Ask for their average placement domain authority scores. If they can't provide this data, that's a red flag.

Content Creation Capabilities

The best PR platform doesn't just distribute your story — it helps you tell it better. Evaluate whether the agency employs skilled writers who understand journalistic style, SEO-optimized headlines, and keyword integration that feels natural rather than forced.

A well-written press release does double duty: it earns media placements and performs well in organic search results on its own.

Industry Specialization

Whether you're launching a product, hosting an event, or entering a new market, niche expertise matters. A tech press release distribution specialist will have relationships with tech-focused journalists and publications that a generalist firm simply won't. Similarly, crypto press release distribution requires relationships with blockchain and fintech media that most traditional agencies lack entirely.

How Different Business Types Benefit From Strategic PR

Understanding how different business models leverage PR helps you identify what kind of support you actually need.

Startups and Early-Stage Brands

For a new business with limited brand recognition, startup press release distribution is often the fastest way to establish credibility. A single well-distributed announcement — whether it's a funding round, a product launch, or a strategic partnership can generate dozens of media mentions almost overnight.

This matters enormously for startups because investors, customers, and potential partners Google your company name before making decisions. Having authoritative media coverage show up on page one of those search results creates instant trust and legitimacy that no amount of paid advertising can manufacture.

An affordable PR agency designed for early-stage companies understands this dynamic and offers scalable service packages that grow alongside the business — without demanding enterprise-level budgets from day one.

Mid-Market Companies Scaling Operations

Companies in growth mode need PR support that can scale quickly, adapt messaging to multiple markets, and maintain consistency across a high volume of announcements. A robust business press release distribution infrastructure ensures that product launches, executive appointments, financial milestones, and partnership announcements all reach the right audiences at the right time.

For mid-market businesses, the compound SEO effect of consistent press release distribution is particularly powerful. Each new placement adds another backlink, another branded mention, another entity signal that search engines use to strengthen your domain authority profile.

Enterprise Organizations

Large organizations typically manage complex stakeholder communications across multiple geographies, industries, and media markets. Enterprise-level PR distribution services need to handle high-volume distribution, multilingual content, regulatory-compliant messaging, and real-time analytics dashboards that give communications teams visibility into campaign performance.

At this scale, the SEO benefits multiply. Consistent, authoritative media presence across hundreds of placements per year creates a digital reputation that's extremely difficult for competitors to undermine.

Online PR Platforms vs. Traditional Agencies: A Comparison

One of the most important decisions modern brands face is whether to work with a traditional PR firm or an online news distribution service for businesses. Here's how they compare across key dimensions:

As the table illustrates, modern PR distribution websites offer significant advantages in speed, cost-efficiency, and measurable ROI — making them the preferred choice for businesses that prioritize digital visibility and transparent performance data.

The SEO Authority Multiplier: Why Distribution Volume Matters

One press release generates one set of placements. But a consistent, ongoing distribution strategy creates something far more valuable: an ever-growing backlink profile that continuously signals to search engines that your domain is a trusted, authoritative source.

Consider the compounding math. If each online press release distribution campaign generates an average of 50 media placements across high-DA sites, then 12 campaigns per year creates 600 new backlinks. Even conservatively assuming that only a third of those links remain indexed and followed, that's still 200 high-quality signals being added to your domain profile annually.

For context, most mid-market companies struggle to generate even 50 quality backlinks per year through traditional content marketing. Strategic PR distribution can outperform an entire content marketing team on the backlink-generation front alone.

This is why smart digital marketers no longer treat PR as a brand-awareness tool in isolation. They treat it as a core pillar of their link-building and SERP domination strategy.

Event, Tech, and Crypto: Niche PR That Demands Specialized Expertise

Not all press releases are created equal, and not all distribution channels serve every industry effectively.

Event press release distribution requires reaching entertainment journalists, local media, lifestyle publications, and event calendars — a completely different ecosystem than what a B2B software company would target.

Tech press release distribution demands access to technology media, startup-focused publications, innovation blogs, and venture capital newsletters. The journalists covering this space have specific expectations for how technical information is presented, and a generalist PR approach often falls flat.

Crypto press release distribution is among the most specialized categories in the industry. Blockchain projects, DeFi platforms, NFT collections, and Web3 companies require access to crypto-native media, token tracking sites, and financial technology journalists who speak the language of decentralized ecosystems. Getting this wrong — either by reaching the wrong audience or presenting the story incorrectly — can be worse than not distributing at all.

When evaluating PR websites for specialized industries, always verify that they have proven placements in your specific niche, not just a general claim of "broad distribution."

Red Flags When Choosing a PR Distribution Platform

Knowing what to avoid is just as important as knowing what to look for. Here are the warning signs that a press release distribution platform may not deliver what it promises:

• Vague distribution claims: Phrases like "thousands of outlets" without specifics about which outlets should raise immediate skepticism.
• No domain authority reporting: Any legitimate platform should be able to show you the DA scores of their primary distribution partners.
• No editorial standards: Platforms that distribute anything without quality review often have relationships with low-quality spam sites that can actually harm your SEO.
• Lack of industry-specific options: A one-size-fits-all approach rarely serves specialized industries well.
• No transparent pricing: Hidden fees or opaque pricing structures are a sign that the value proposition doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
• Poor customer support: Especially for time-sensitive announcements, you need a platform with responsive support that can address issues in real time.

Why a PR Company for Startups Needs Different Evaluation Criteria

When a PR company for startups is what you're looking for, the evaluation framework shifts in important ways. Startups operate under fundamentally different constraints than established enterprises — tighter budgets, faster pivots, and the existential need to establish credibility from scratch.

The right partner for a startup will offer:

• Flexible, low-commitment pricing that doesn't require long-term contracts before the relationship is proven
• Founder-friendly communication that helps translate technical or innovative concepts into media-ready narratives
• Targeted distribution that prioritizes the outlets most likely to reach potential investors, early customers, and strategic partners
• Fast turnaround because startup news cycles move quickly and opportunities to ride trending topics disappear fast

Beyond tactical distribution, the right public relations company for a startup functions as a strategic advisor — helping founders understand how to sequence their announcements for maximum cumulative impact and build a media track record that grows with the business.

Why PR Distribution Is a Smart Long-Term Investment

Some businesses hesitate to invest in press release distribution services because they view it as a one-time expense rather than a compounding asset. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how modern PR creates value.

Every press release that gets picked up by a credible outlet creates a permanent digital artifact — an indexed page that carries your brand's name, your key messages, and a backlink to your domain. These artifacts don't expire. A placement from six months ago still passes link equity today. A placement from three years ago may still be generating organic search traffic.

When you hire PR agency support on an ongoing basis — rather than in one-off bursts — you're building a digital reputation that becomes increasingly difficult for competitors to match. The asymmetric advantage of consistent PR investment is one of the most underappreciated dynamics in digital marketing.

How to Evaluate a PR Distribution Website Before Committing

Before signing any agreement or placing any order, perform this quick evaluation on any PR distribution website you're considering:

Step 1: Request a sample media list. Ask for a list of the specific outlets they regularly place content on. Cross-reference those outlets in Moz, Ahrefs, or Semrush to verify their domain authority scores.

Step 2: Check for transparency in reporting. Ask how they report results. You should receive post-distribution reports showing every outlet that picked up your release, with links to live placements.

Step 3: Ask about editorial review. Quality platforms review content before distribution to ensure it meets journalistic standards. This protects both your reputation and the integrity of their distribution network.

Step 4: Evaluate customer case studies. Ask for examples of campaigns similar to yours same industry, similar goals. A credible press release distribution services provider will have documented success stories they're happy to share.

Step 5: Compare pricing structures. Understand exactly what's included at each price point. See current options at prbusinesswires.com/pricing for transparent, structured pricing.

The Future of PR: AI Search, GEO, and AEO Optimization

The landscape of information discovery is shifting rapidly. Google's AI Overviews, ChatGPT's browsing capabilities, and emerging AI search engines are increasingly serving answers directly in response to user queries pulling from authoritative, well-structured content across the web.

This means that modern press release distribution isn't just about reaching human journalists. It's about creating content that AI systems recognize as authoritative, well-sourced, and semantically rich enough to serve as a reference for answer generation.

Brands that invest in consistent, high-quality PR distribution now are building the digital authority footprint that will determine their visibility in AI-powered search experiences — a competitive advantage that will only grow more valuable as these systems become the dominant information retrieval interface.

The public relations agency that understands this dynamic isn't just a PR partner it's an AI search optimization partner for the era ahead.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What makes a PR company different from a marketing agency?

A PR agency focuses on earned media securing organic placements in news outlets and publications through credibility and relationships. Marketing agencies primarily manage paid channels. PR builds long-term authority; marketing drives immediate conversions.

2. How does press release distribution improve SEO rankings?

Press release distribution generates backlinks from authoritative news sites, which are among the strongest ranking signals search engines use. Consistent distribution builds a compounding backlink profile that strengthens domain authority over time.

3. Is PR distribution worth it for a small business?

Absolutely. An affordable PR agency or online distribution platform can generate media coverage and SEO-boosting backlinks at a fraction of what traditional advertising costs making PR one of the highest-ROI channels for budget-conscious businesses.

4. How many press releases should a business distribute per year?

The optimal frequency depends on business activity, but most companies benefit from at least one business press release distribution per month. Product launches, partnerships, milestones, and industry commentary all make compelling release topics.

5. What should a press release include for maximum media pickup?

An effective press release has a compelling, newsworthy headline, a clear opening paragraph answering who/what/when/where/why, supporting details, a quote from a company spokesperson, and a clear call to action. PR firms with editorial teams can help craft content that meets journalistic standards.

6. What's the difference between local and national press release distribution?

Local distribution targets regional media outlets in specific markets, ideal for businesses with local relevance. National online press release distribution reaches broader wire services, national publications, and industry media better for brands seeking wide digital authority.

7. Can press releases help a crypto or blockchain company?

Yes. Crypto press release distribution through specialized channels reaches blockchain journalists, crypto-native media, and fintech publications that are specifically interested in decentralized technology announcements.

8. How quickly do press releases get picked up after distribution?

Most modern press release distribution platform services distribute content within hours. Initial placements typically appear within 24–48 hours, with secondary pickups from journalists and bloggers continuing for days or weeks afterward.

9. How do I measure the ROI of PR distribution?

Key metrics include the number of media placements, domain authority of placed outlets, new backlinks generated, referral traffic from coverage, branded search volume increases, and SERP ranking improvements for target keywords. Quality PR distribution services provide detailed post-campaign analytics.

10. Why choose an online PR platform over a traditional agency?

A modern PR platform offers faster distribution, transparent pricing, scalable packages, real-time analytics, and a broader digital network — often at significantly lower cost than traditional agency retainers. For businesses prioritizing measurable digital ROI, online platforms consistently outperform legacy agency models.

What is Microsoft Copilot?

Launched in early 2023, Microsoft Copilot (formerly Bing Chat) is an AI-powered conversational assistant integrated into Microsoft Edge, Bing search, and Windows 11. It uses OpenAI's GPT-4 model and can generate text, answer questions, summarize content, and create images via DALL-E. Copilot is free to use, though some advanced features may require a Microsoft 365 subscription.

Copilot is designed as a general-purpose assistant for everyday tasks. It helps users draft emails, write code, plan trips, and research topics. It is deeply integrated into Microsoft's ecosystem, appearing in Office apps like Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Outlook. However, its capabilities in these apps are limited compared to Copilot Plus.

What is Microsoft Copilot Plus?

Announced in early 2024, Copilot Plus represents a premium tier of Microsoft's AI assistant. It is primarily aimed at enterprise and power users who need enhanced capabilities, higher usage limits, and deeper integration with Microsoft 365 and Azure services. Copilot Plus includes everything in Copilot, plus additional features such as:

• Extended context window: Ability to process longer documents and conversations.
• Priority access: Faster response times, especially during peak usage.
• Advanced data security: Compliance with enterprise-grade security and privacy policies.
• Custom AI models: Organizations can fine-tune Copilot Plus with their own data (within Microsoft's guardrails).
• Analytics and reporting: Insights into how Copilot is used across the organization.

Copilot Plus is available as a subscription add-on to Microsoft 365 Business Premium, E3, or E5 plans. Pricing is per user per month, making it a significant investment for companies serious about AI transformation.

Key Differences at a Glance

Integration with Microsoft 365

Both assistants integrate with Microsoft 365 apps, but the level of integration differs. Copilot in Word can help you draft documents based on brief prompts, while in Excel it can analyze data and create charts. However, these features are basic. Copilot Plus, on the other hand, can pull data from your entire Microsoft Graph—emails, calendars, documents, Teams chats—to provide contextually aware assistance. For example, it can draft a reply to an email by referencing past correspondence and calendar events.

Copilot Plus also supports automation through Power Platform, allowing users to create AI-powered workflows without coding. This makes it a powerful tool for business process optimization.

Security and Compliance

For enterprises, security is a top concern. Copilot Plus adheres to Microsoft's Secure Future Initiative, ensuring that data is encrypted at rest and in transit, and that AI models are not trained on customer data. It also offers audit logs, role-based access control, and integration with Microsoft Purview for compliance monitoring. Copilot, while secure for consumer use, does not offer the same level of enterprise controls.

Pricing and Value

Copilot is free for everyone, making it accessible. However, heavy users may encounter rate limits. Copilot Plus starts at $30 per user per month as an add-on to Microsoft 365 Business Premium (which itself costs $22 per user per month). For organizations already invested in Microsoft's ecosystem, this cost can be justified by productivity gains and reduced time spent on routine tasks.

Microsoft has also introduced a Copilot Plus for Developers plan, which includes access to Azure OpenAI services and tools for building custom applications. This plan is priced separately.

Real-World Use Cases

For a freelancer or student: Copilot (free) is sufficient for drafting emails, summarizing articles, and generating ideas. The integration with Bing and Edge makes research faster.

For a marketing team: Copilot Plus can analyze campaign data from Excel, summarize meeting notes from Teams, and generate reports in PowerPoint. It can also suggest content strategies based on historical performance.

For a healthcare organization: Copilot Plus with its compliance certifications can assist with clinical documentation, patient communication, and data analysis while adhering to HIPAA regulations.

The Future of Microsoft's AI Assistants

Microsoft is investing heavily in AI. Future updates may blur the lines between Copilot and Copilot Plus, but for now, the segmentation allows the company to serve both mass-market consumers and demanding enterprises. Copilot Plus is expected to gain new features like real-time translation, multimodal inputs (voice, image, video), and deeper integration with Dynamics 365 and LinkedIn.

As AI becomes more embedded in daily workflows, the choice between Copilot and Copilot Plus will depend on your specific needs. For individual users, the free version offers incredible value. For organizations that rely on Microsoft's suite, Copilot Plus is a strategic investment that can transform how work gets done.

Ultimately, both assistants represent a significant leap forward in human-computer interaction. Microsoft is positioning itself as a leader in the AI assistant space, and these two products are just the beginning of a new era of productivity.

Source: Windows Central News

Release Timeline and Naming

Microsoft typically ships major Windows 11 updates in the second half of the year, and 25H2 is expected to follow that rhythm. The "25" in the version number stands for the year 2025, and "H2" indicates the second half of the calendar year. Based on the company’s history, a preview or release preview build should become available to Windows Insiders in the spring of 2025, with a stable rollout beginning around September or October. However, delays are always possible, especially if major features are still being polished. Microsoft has also been experimenting with releasing feature updates as enablement packages for smaller changes, but 25H2 is likely to be a full build upgrade with a new base image.

One key difference from earlier updates is that Microsoft may decouple some AI features from the main OS release, delivering them via the Microsoft Store or cloud updates. This means that even if you are on an older feature update, you might still receive certain innovations.

AI Integration: Copilot Everywhere

The centerpiece of Windows 11 version 25H2 is expected to be an even deeper integration of Microsoft Copilot, the AI assistant that debuted in 2023. In 25H2, Copilot will become more context-aware, able to monitor your workflow and offer proactive suggestions. For example, if you are working on a document and frequently switch between apps, Copilot might suggest creating a workflow automation or summarizing email threads. The assistant will also gain the ability to control more system settings through natural language, such as changing display brightness, enabling dark mode, or managing Bluetooth devices.

Microsoft is also expected to introduce local AI processing using Neural Processing Units (NPUs) common in modern PCs. This will allow some Copilot interactions to happen offline, improving privacy and reducing latency. Features like real-time captioning, background blur in video calls, and AI-powered photo editing (similar to what is already in Paint and Photos) will see enhancements. The company may also bring generative AI to File Explorer, enabling users to search for files by describing their content or creation date in plain language.

User Interface and Shell Improvements

Windows 11 25H2 is rumored to include a refreshed interface that builds on the design language introduced with version 22H2. The Start menu and taskbar may receive new customization options, such as the ability to center or left-align the taskbar without third-party tools, and more flexible icon grouping. The system tray, which has been a sore point for many users, could finally get the ability to show all icons by default or reorder them more intuitively.

Snap Layouts, one of the most praised features of Windows 11, will be expanded with support for custom layout creation. Users will be able to save their own snap layouts and assign them to specific applications or window groups. Virtual desktops are also getting smarter: you will be able to name them and assign different wallpapers, and Microsoft might introduce a dashboard overview that shows all desktops at once with live previews.

File Explorer is expected to receive another round of updates. The current modernized version with tabs and a refreshed sidebar (introduced in 23H2) will likely add support for third-party storage services like Dropbox or Google Drive directly in the navigation pane, similar to what is already possible on macOS. The context menu will finally become faster, with fewer "Show more options" clicks needed to access common actions like copy, paste, and rename.

Security and Privacy

Security remains a top priority for Microsoft, and 25H2 will bring several enhancements. The built-in antivirus Microsoft Defender is expected to gain improved ransomware protection with automatic folder locking based on user behavior. Smart App Control, which blocks untrusted applications, will be extended to cover scripts and macros used in Office documents. Windows Hello biometric authentication will support more hardware, including external IR cameras and fingerprint readers that are certified for government-grade security.

Another notable addition is the expansion of Pluton, the security processor co-developed with AMD and Intel. Pluton will be required or optional depending on the OEM, but Microsoft aims to make it standard in all new Copilot+ PCs. This chip provides hardware-level protection for credentials and encryption keys, even if the operating system is compromised.

Privacy settings will also be revamped. A new privacy dashboard will consolidate all location, camera, microphone, and diagnostic data controls in one place, with clearer explanations of what each setting does. Users will have the option to disable all telemetry with a single toggle, though basic diagnostic data may remain mandatory for security updates.

Performance and Battery Life

Windows 11 25H2 is likely to bring performance optimizations, especially for devices with low memory or older processors. The OS will use less RAM at idle, and Microsoft is working on a new energy-saving mode that extends battery life on laptops by reducing background activity and dimming the display when not in use. This mode may be automatically activated when the battery drops below 20%.

The update will also introduce better support for ARM-based processors from Qualcomm, AMD, and Nvidia. With the rise of ARM laptops like the Surface Pro X and the new Windows on ARM ecosystem, 25H2 will improve x64 emulation performance, allowing legacy apps to run with fewer slowdowns. The OS will also take advantage of the built-in NPU in modern ARM chips to offload AI tasks from the CPU and GPU, freeing up resources for other applications.

Gaming and Graphics

For gamers, Windows 11 25H2 will include DirectX 13? Not quite, but Microsoft is working on DirectStorage 2.0, which allows games to load assets directly from the GPU without burdening the CPU. This reduces loading times and improves texture streaming in open-world games. Auto HDR will now support more games, even those developed for older versions of Windows. The Xbox Game Bar is receiving a major overhaul with a new interface that can be customized with widgets for performance monitoring, screenshots, and social features.

The update will also bring better support for variable refresh rate monitors, including those with VRR (Variable Refresh Rate) flicker reduction. For users with multiple high-refresh-rate displays, Windows 11 25H2 will handle differences in refresh rates more gracefully, preventing the system from defaulting to the lowest common denominator.

Hardware Requirements and Compatibility

Microsoft has not raised the minimum system requirements for Windows 11 since its launch, and 25H2 is expected to maintain the same baseline: a 64-bit CPU with at least 1 GHz and 2 cores, 4 GB of RAM, 64 GB of storage, UEFI Secure Boot, and TPM 2.0. However, many new AI features will require an NPU with at least 45 TOPS (trillions of operations per second) of performance. That means older PCs without dedicated AI accelerators may not be able to use Copilot+ functions like Windows Studio Effects or real-time translation. Microsoft is framing this as a hardware differentiation, much like how some Windows 11 features require a DirectX 12 graphics card.

If your PC does not meet the NPU requirement, you will still receive the update and most security and UI improvements, but the advanced AI tools will be greyed out. This mirrors the approach seen in Windows 11 24H2’s Copilot+ features.

Enterprise and IT Administration

For business users, Windows 11 25H2 will introduce Windows 365 Boot improvements, allowing devices to boot directly into a cloud PC. The update will also include new management tools within Microsoft Intune, making it easier to deploy updates and enforce compliance policies. Microsoft is pushing a concept called "Windows as a Device" where the OS is continuously updated, reducing the need for major rebuilds. However, enterprises will still be able to use feature update deferrals as needed.

Another enterprise-focused feature is enhanced Windows Defender for Endpoint with AI-driven threat hunting. This will automatically analyze suspicious patterns and recommend isolation steps without IT intervention.

What Will Not Be in 25H2

While there are many rumors, some expected changes are unlikely. A full redesign of the desktop with widgets taking over the entire screen is improbable, as Microsoft is still iterating on the current widget board. Similarly, the rumored ability to run Android apps natively (beyond the current Amazon Appstore integration) appears to have been shelved. Microsoft is focusing on its own app ecosystem and cloud gaming instead.

Rumors of a subscription-based Windows have also been denied by the company; Windows 11 25H2 will remain a free update for existing Windows 11 users and a one-time purchase for new builds.

Bottom Line

Windows 11 version 25H2 is shaping up to be a significant update, solidifying Microsoft’s AI-first strategy while refining the user experience. The release date is tentatively set for late 2025, with Insiders getting early access in the spring. While not every new feature will be available on older hardware, the core OS improvements—better security, performance, and usability—will benefit all users. For those planning to purchase a new PC in 2025, choosing one with an NPU will unlock the full potential of what Microsoft envisions for the future of Windows.

Source: Windows Central News

The statement came during a wide-ranging discussion about Microsoft's partnership with OpenAI, which has invested billions of dollars into the startup. Nadella's comments are significant because they challenge the official narrative put forth by the OpenAI board at the time of Altman's firing. The board had stated that Altman “was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities.” However, Nadella’s alternative explanation points to deeper personal animosities and a lack of professional discipline among board members.

The Firing That Rocked Silicon Valley

On November 17, 2023, the board of OpenAI abruptly announced that it had removed Sam Altman as CEO, citing a loss of confidence. The decision stunned employees, investors, and the broader tech community. Within days, nearly all 700 OpenAI employees threatened to resign unless Altman was reinstated, and Microsoft quickly offered to hire him and any staff who wished to leave. The board’s actions were widely criticized as hasty and poorly communicated, leading to a chaotic weekend of negotiations. Ultimately, Altman returned as CEO just five days later, with a new board installed and several original board members stepping down.

Nadella’s characterization of the board’s behavior as “amateur city” aligns with criticisms that the board lacked the experience needed to oversee a multi-billion-dollar enterprise. The board at the time included figures like Ilya Sutskever (OpenAI’s chief scientist), Adam D’Angelo (CEO of Quora), Tasha McCauley (entrepreneur), and Helen Toner (a researcher at Georgetown’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology). None had previous experience managing a high-profile CEO transition in a company as fast-moving as OpenAI.

Jealousy Over Candor

During the interview, Nadella explicitly stated that he believed the real motivation behind Altman’s firing was jealousy. “When you have a group of people who are brilliant but also have massive egos, sometimes jealousy becomes the motive,” he said. “It’s not about candor—that was just the excuse.” Nadella’s theory has found support from unnamed sources close to the board’s deliberations, who claimed that some board members felt marginalized by Altman’s rapid fundraising and high public profile. Altman had become the face of generative AI, appearing at congressional hearings and on international stages, while the board remained largely anonymous.

The notion that Altman was fired for being too visible aligns with reported tensions between Altman and certain board members who wanted a more cautious, safety-first approach. However, Nadella argued that such disputes should have been handled through proper governance channels, not a sudden coup. “If you have concerns, you address them in the boardroom, not by throwing a grenade and walking away,” he added. His remarks imply that the board’s actions were reckless and damaged both OpenAI and Microsoft’s strategic interests.

Microsoft’s Stake and Response

Microsoft’s investment in OpenAI is among the largest in tech history, with commitments totaling over $13 billion. The partnership gave Microsoft exclusive access to OpenAI’s advanced models, which power products like GitHub Copilot, Azure OpenAI Service, and the Bing chat feature. When Altman was fired, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella was reportedly blindsided, having learned of the decision only minutes before the public announcement. The lack of communication infuriated Nadella, who immediately began working to reverse the decision.

Nadella’s behind-the-scenes role in bringing Altman back was critical. He not only offered Altman and OpenAI staff immediate jobs at Microsoft but also pressured the remaining board members to resign. Within days, interim CEO Emmett Shear stepped down, and a new board was formed with Bret Taylor (former co-CEO of Salesforce) as chairman, along with former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and Quora CEO Adam D’Angelo. Altman’s reinstatement was announced on November 21, with a statement that the parties had “reached a consensus in principle.”

The episode highlighted the unusual structure of OpenAI, which operates as a capped-profit entity controlled by a non-profit board. This structure was designed to ensure that the company prioritized safety over profits, but it also left it vulnerable to governance failures. Nadella’s criticism suggests that the non-profit board lacked the experience to manage a high-stakes company at the frontier of AI development.

Broader Implications for AI Governance

The Altman firing and subsequent fallout have sparked wider debates about how to govern powerful AI companies. Many experts argue that the current model, where a small non-profit board holds ultimate power over a for-profit subsidiary, is unsustainable. Nadella’s “amateur city” comment underscores this criticism. He noted that Microsoft, as a seasoned publicly traded company, would never allow such a situation to arise. “We have processes, checks, balances, and a board that understands its fiduciary duty. OpenAI’s board seemed to forget that they had a duty not just to the mission but also to the employees, investors, and the broader public,” he said.

In the wake of the crisis, OpenAI has announced it will restructure its board and governance practices. Bret Taylor has been tasked with leading a review of the company’s governance, with an eye toward establishing clearer lines of accountability. Meanwhile, Sam Altman has returned to his role with renewed authority, but the scars of the episode remain. Employees have reported a drop in trust, and some top talents have left to start competing ventures.

Nadella’s willingness to speak openly about the board’s failings is unusual for a CEO of his stature, but it reflects the importance of the OpenAI partnership to Microsoft’s AI strategy. Any disruption to that relationship could have severe consequences for Microsoft’s cloud business, which increasingly relies on OpenAI’s models to drive growth. By blaming jealousy and amateurism, Nadella is also sending a message to the technology community: that Microsoft will not tolerate governance instability in its key investments.

Historical Context: Boardroom Battles in Tech

The OpenAI boardroom saga is not without precedent in the tech industry. Steve Jobs was famously ousted from Apple in 1985 after a power struggle with then-CEO John Sculley and the board. Jobs later returned in 1997 to save the company from bankruptcy. Similarly, Travis Kalanick was forced out of Uber in 2017 amid a series of scandals, though his departure was seen as necessary for the company’s reform. However, unlike those cases, the OpenAI board’s action was based not on performance failures but on personal grievances, according to Nadella’s account.

Nadella also drew parallels to his own experience at Microsoft, where he orchestrated a cultural turnaround after the departure of Steve Ballmer. He emphasized that leadership changes should be handled with transparency and due process. “You don’t fire a CEO because you’re jealous of his success. That’s a sign of a broken board,” he said. His remarks have been interpreted as a broader critique of the venture capital and startup ethos, where founders are often lionized and boards are seen as rubber stamps.

As the AI industry continues to evolve, governance will remain a central issue. Regulators in the United States and Europe are already examining whether existing laws are sufficient to oversee companies like OpenAI, which have immense power over the development of transformative technology. Nadella’s comments add weight to the argument that boards must be professionalized and held accountable.

For now, the immediate crisis at OpenAI has passed, but the underlying tensions remain. Satya Nadella’s blunt assessment serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of letting personal rivalries override sound governance. As he put it, “We need to grow up as an industry. We can’t have these amateur boardrooms making decisions that affect the entire world.”

Source: Windows Central News

The blocking mechanism

When users attempt to access Reddit's mobile website (such as old.reddit.com or the main mobile-redirect), they are now confronted with a full-screen overlay that blocks the content. The overlay encourages users to 'Open in App' or 'Continue to App' rather than browse the site on the web. Some users report that the only way to bypass the block is to download the app, while others have found temporary workarounds, such as switching to desktop mode or using third-party clients – though those clients have largely been killed off by Reddit's API changes last year.

The move is the latest in a series of actions by Reddit to drive users to its native app, where it can serve more ads, collect more data, and exert tighter control over the user experience. For years, the mobile website offered a relatively lightweight way to read and interact with content, especially for users with limited data plans or those who preferred not to install the app.

User backlash

The reaction from the Reddit community has been overwhelmingly negative. On subreddits like r/technology and r/redditmobile, users have expressed frustration. One user wrote, 'I just won't use Reddit anymore. The app is bloated and full of ads.' Another said, 'This is a hostile move. They are taking away choice.' Many users have pointed out that the app suffers from bugs, poor performance, and a cluttered interface compared to the clean mobile website.

Some users have stated they will migrate to alternative platforms like Lemmy or Kbin, which are decentralized and not controlled by Reddit. Others plan to stop using Reddit entirely, leading to concerns about a potential decline in community engagement. However, whether this will have a meaningful long-term impact remains to be seen, as similar tactics by other social media platforms (like Tumblr and Facebook) have faced backlash but ultimately succeeded in pushing users to apps.

Reddit's history of app promotion

Reddit has long been accused of neglecting its mobile website. Over the years, many features that require the app (such as chat, push notifications, and certain post tools) have been unavailable on the web. The company has also redesigned the mobile site to be slower and less intuitive, subtly nudging users to the app. In 2023, Reddit's decision to charge exorbitant fees for API access effectively killed third-party clients like Apollo and Reddit is Fun, which were popular among mobile power users. That move also forced many to use the official app, which many find inferior.

The current blocking is a more aggressive step. Previously, users could at least dismiss the app promotion and continue browsing the mobile site. Now, they are locked out until they install the app. This has drawn comparisons to other companies that have employed similar 'app-only' tactics, such as Twitch and LinkedIn, both of which faced criticism but ultimately maintained their app strategies.

Technical workarounds and potential antitrust concerns

Some tech-savvy users have found ways to bypass the block, such as using a browser's 'Desktop site' option or using an extension that spoofs the user agent. These workarounds are not reliable and may be patched in the future. Others have turned to third-party browsers like Firefox with custom add-ons that force the desktop version.

From a legal standpoint, Reddit's action could raise antitrust issues. Critics argue that by hindering access to its own mobile website, Reddit is unfairly forcing users to use its app, which could be seen as anti-competitive behavior. The European Union and other jurisdictions have been cracking down on such practices, particularly when they involve companies with market dominance. However, Reddit is not yet a dominant force like Google or Apple, and its mobile website is arguably an extension of its service, not a separate market. Still, the move may draw scrutiny from regulators.

The broader context of mobile web vs. apps

The shift from mobile web to native apps is not unique to Reddit. Many social media platforms have found that users who use apps spend more time on the platform, engage more with ads, and are less likely to use ad blockers. Apps also allow companies to track user behavior more granularly and push notifications that drive repeated visits. For Reddit, which has been under pressure to become profitable, these benefits are significant.

However, the approach alienates a segment of users who prefer the open web. The mobile web version of Reddit is often faster, uses less data, and does not require installation. Users on limited storage or older devices suffer particularly. By closing the mobile web door, Reddit is also reducing the accessibility of its platform to those who cannot or will not install the app.

What happens now?

It is unclear whether the block is a test or a permanent change. Reddit has not officially announced the move, and its communications team has not responded to requests for comment. The company's CEO, Steve Huffman (known as spez), has previously stated that the app is the future of Reddit. Given the company's aggressive posture in recent years, it is likely that the block will become permanent if it is not already.

Users who want to continue using Reddit on mobile will need to either accept the app or switch to a desktop computer. The power users who rely on old Reddit or custom clients are feeling particularly betrayed. The decision may lead to a slow but steady erosion of Reddit's user base, especially among tech-savvy demographics who value openness and control. Ultimately, Reddit is betting that the convenience of the app and the network effects of its communities will outweigh the backlash. Whether that bet pays off will become clear in the coming months.

Source: Windows Central News