Authored by Brayden Lindrea via CoinTelegraph.com,

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has claimed Bitcoin provides healthy competition for the US dollar, which in turn pressures policymakers to maintain fiscal discipline and helps preserve the greenback’s dominance.

“[Bitcoin] provides a check and balance on the dollar in the sense of if there’s too much deficit spending or inflation in the US, people will flee to Bitcoin in times of uncertainty,” Armstrong argued in an interview on Tetragrammaton with Rick Rubin on Thursday.

“It might be okay to have 2-3% inflation if the economy is growing at 2-3% but if inflation outstrips the growth of the economy, you’ll eventually lose the reserve currency status, and that would be a massive blow to the United States.”

He said that Bitcoin indirectly keeps the dollar in check by ensuring the Federal Reserve and financial regulators avoid actions that could undermine confidence in the US economy.

“So I actually think in a strange way, Bitcoin is helping extend the American experiment,” the Coinbase boss concluded.

Bitcoin is good for USD.

It creates competition in a way that’s healthy for the dollar, which helps to provide a check and balance against high inflation and deficit spending. pic.twitter.com/iHjQCJVqCb

— Brian Armstrong (@brian_armstrong) December 28, 2025

America’s debt is growing at $6B a day, nearing $38T

US national debt has boomed to $37.65 trillion, and is now rising by $70,843 per second — or nearly $4.25 million per minute — according to the US Congress Joint Economic Committee’s debt dashboard.

In early October, JPMorgan touted Bitcoin and gold as the “debasement trade” amid increased uncertainty in the dollar.

Bitcoin soared to a $126,080 high on Oct. 10 but has since retraced 30% to $88,210, while gold has continued its tear, setting its latest high of $4,545 per ounce on Friday.

The Trump administration signed an executive order to establish a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve in March, a move that several US senators said could mitigate the nation’s mounting debt.

However, the reserve currently stockpiles seized Bitcoin without purchasing any and the Bitcoin Act of 2025 bill — which purports to support the SBR — is still in the early legislative stages in Congress.

Stablecoins may do better at preserving dollar dominance

Other industry pundits argue that stablecoins have a bigger role in cementing the US dollar’s status as the reserve currency than Bitcoin.

In addition to creating strong demand for US debt, stablecoins are pushing the US dollar into the hands of individuals and businesses worldwide, Polygon Foundation CEO Sandeep Nailwal said last month.

“Dollarisation 2.0 is happening in real time — from LatAm to Africa, entire economies are being rewired around digital dollars.”

Source: Antonio García Martínez

The US passed the GENIUS Act in mid-July, seen as one of the most comprehensive stablecoin frameworks to date.

The stablecoin market currently sits at $312.6 billion, a figure that the US Treasury estimated in April would reach $2 trillion by 2028.

Authored by Michael Kern via OilPrice.com,

The abstract “cloud” of artificial intelligence possesses a massive, structural demand for 24/7 “baseload” power that is equivalent to adding Germany’s entire power grid by 2026, a need intermittent renewables cannot meet.

Decades of underinvestment have resulted in a widening uranium supply deficit, with mined uranium expected to meet less than 75% of future reactor needs and an incentive price of $135/lb required to restart mothballed mines.

Big Tech hyperscalers are privatizing energy security by locking in clean baseload nuclear power via long-term agreements, effectively making the public grid’s “service” secondary to the “compute-ready” requirements of major platforms.

We are seeing a violent collision between two worlds: the high-speed, iterative world of artificial intelligence and the slow, grinding, capital-intensive world of nuclear physics. 

Data from a survey of over 600 global investors reveals that 63% now view AI electricity demand as a “structural” shift in nuclear planning. This isn’t a temporary spike or a speculative bubble. It is the physical footprint of every Large Language Model (LLM) query finally showing up on the global balance sheet.

For years, the energy narrative was dominated by “efficiency.” We were told that better chips would offset higher usage. That era is over. Generative AI doesn’t just use data; it incinerates energy to create it.

Why the “Efficiency” Narrative Failed

The “Reverse-Polish” reality of AI is that the more efficient we make the chips, the more chips we deploy, and the more complex the models become. This is Jevons Paradox playing out in real-time across the data centers of Northern Virginia and Singapore.

When you look at the energy density required for an AI hyperscale center, you aren’t looking at a traditional office building. You are looking at a facility that pulls as much power as a mid-sized city, but does so with a 99.999% uptime requirement.

Traditional demand models simply didn’t account for a single industry deciding to double its power footprint in less than five years. S&P Global Energy recently highlighted that data center electricity consumption could hit 2,200 terawatt-hours (TWh). 

Intermittent renewables…the darlings of the corporate ESG report…cannot provide the 24/7 “baseload” these machines require…

The hyperscalers have realized that if they want to dominate AI, they need to secure physical atoms before the other guy does.

The $135 Ceiling and the Mining Reality Gap

While the demand side is moving at the speed of software, the supply side is stuck in the mud of 20th-century industrial timelines.

The uranium market is currently a “two-speed” machine. On one hand, you have short-term spot price volatility that makes traders nervous. On the other, you have a long-term supply deficit that is widening like a canyon. 

Data suggests that mined uranium will meet less than 75% of future reactor requirements.

We are living through the consequences of twenty years of underinvestment. After 2011, the world essentially stopped looking for uranium. We lived off the “secondary supply”…old Cold War warheads and utility stockpiles. Those stockpiles are now effectively exhausted.

More than 85% of investors surveyed anticipate uranium prices hitting the $100–$120/lb range by 2026. Some are looking at $135/lb.

I see these numbers, and I don’t see “growth.” I see a desperate incentive price. $135 isn’t a sign of a healthy market… it is the price required to beg miners to reopen mothballed pits and navigate the ten-year permitting hellscape required for a greenfield project.

Mining is a “boots-on-the-ground” reality that doesn’t care about digital timelines.

Who Collects the Equity and Who Pays the Bill?

There is a massive shift happening in the power dynamics of infrastructure. For decades, nuclear power was a public service…state-funded, state-regulated, and built for the citizen.

Now, we are seeing the “Private Platform” era of nuclear energy. When a hyperscaler signs a twenty-year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with a nuclear utility, they are effectively “locking in” the best, cleanest baseload power for private profit.

The question we aren’t asking: who pays for the grid upgrades to support this?

The hyperscalers want the green electrons to satisfy their net-zero pledges, but the physical copper and transformers required to move that power often fall on the rate-paying public or the state. We are witnessing the privatization of energy security.

If 63% of investors are right and AI is the new driver of nuclear planning, the “public service” aspect of the grid is about to become a secondary concern to the “compute-ready” requirements of Big Tech.

The equity is being collected by the tech platforms and the uranium miners. The risk is being socialized by the grid.

The Geopolitical Reality of Uranium Supply

We cannot talk about the uranium market without talking about the “Iron Fist” of state policy. The West is currently trying to rebuild a supply chain that it intentionally dismantled.

The U.S. and Europe are aggressively pushing “sustainable finance frameworks” to include nuclear, but they are doing so while facing a massive bottleneck in enrichment and conversion capacity…much of which is still tied to Russian state interests.

China, South Korea, and the UAE aren’t waiting for the market to “find a price.” They are treating nuclear as a matter of national survival. China is currently building more reactors than the rest of the world combined.

They understand something the West is only just realizing: you cannot run a 21st-century economy on 19th-century energy densities.

If the uranium supply remains constrained, we won’t just see higher prices. We will see a geopolitical scramble for “off-take” agreements. The nation that secures the uranium secures the AI lead.

The “vibe” of energy abundance is a lie…We are entering an era of energy rationing by price.

The Technical Friction: Steel vs. Code

The most significant gap in the current market “bull case” is the technical audit of the hardware.

The survey data shows that investors are betting on “restarts” and “greenfield developments” to close the supply gap. But you can’t just pour money into a hole and expect uranium to come out the next day.

Uranium mining is plagued by:

Water Management Issues: Especially in places like Kazakhstan (the world’s largest producer), where sulfuric acid shortages have already hampered production targets.

Labor Scarcity: We have a generation of mining engineers who were told nuclear was dead. They didn’t go to school for this.

The Enrichment Bottleneck: Even if you have the yellowcake, you need to turn it into fuel. The West’s capacity to do this is currently maxed out.

Sprott Asset Management correctly notes that utilities can only defer procurement for so long. Eventually, they have to buy. When they do, they will find a market where the physical steel and the chemical reagents are in shorter supply than the capital.

The “catch-up trade” of 2026 isn’t just about price. It’s about the reality that we forgot how to build big things in the physical world.

The Bill for the Utopia

We are being sold a vision of AI-driven abundance…health breakthroughs, autonomous cities, and limitless productivity.

But to get that utopia, we need to solve a uranium deficit that has been building for twenty years. 

We need to build reactors at a pace not seen since the 1970s. 

And we need to do it while the primary producers are facing technical and geopolitical headwinds.

The $100–$120/lb range is just the beginning. If the supply response doesn’t materialize…and given the 15-year lead times, why would it?  We are looking at a permanent state of high-cost energy for everyone who isn’t a trillion-dollar tech company.

We are finally moving from a world of “clicks” back to a world of “kilowatts”…And the kilowatts are getting very, very expensive.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made clear to both his citizens and to the world that the ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine will continue on until all goals are achieved, and that his forces are advancing ‘confidently’.

He chaired a televised meeting with the country’s top military officials, focused on a status update regarding Ukraine, and crucially coming the day after Presidents Trump and Zelensky met in Florida in a failed effort to reach breakthrough on the proposed peace deal. Moscow is pressing ahead with its goal of fully capturing and pacifying the four Ukrainian regions it declared part of the Russian Federation in fall of 2022 via a ‘popular referendum’.

“The goal of liberating the Donbas, Zaporizhia and Kherson regions is being carried out in stages, in accordance with the plan of the special military operation,” Putin described before underscoring, “The troops are confidently advancing.“

Sputnik/Reuters

At the meeting it was also announced that Russian troops have made more gains in the last 24 hours, especially the capture of Dibrova village in Donetsk region.

According to an update of the meeting via RT translation, battlefield gains of the past month are significant:

In December, Russian forces liberated over 700 square kilometers of territory, taking some 32 settlements under control, Gerasimov said at the meeting. This month, the military has shown the highest rate of progress in the entire outgoing year, he noted, adding that troops are advancing “along virtually the entire frontline.”

“The adversary is not undertaking any active offensive actions. They have concentrated their main efforts on strengthening their defenses and are attempting to slow the pace of our advance by conducting counterattacks in isolated areas and using drones en masse,” Gerasimov said.

The Kremlin has at the same time reiterated that it is not interested in a ‘Plan B or Plan C’ in terms of a peace deal, but that it only seeks lasting political settlement. This will of course include international recognition of its territories in the Donbass.

According to highlights the Russian president’s speech after his meeting with top defense officials, via a TASS and Al Jazeera compilation:

Attempts by Ukraine to interfere with the Russian army in Kupiansk must be decisively suppressed.
The capture of Siversk allows for the development of offensives towards the cities of Sloviansk and Kramatorsk.
Prospects for the complete capture of the Donbas territory have been discussed.
Expansion of the security zone along the Russian-Ukrainian border is on the table.
Troops have broken through the Ukrainian defences and are advancing towards the city of Zaporizhzhia.

Putin tells Russian generals:

It’s necessary to continue the operation to gain control of the city of Zaporizhzhia. pic.twitter.com/AT0XkCbkV5

— Clash Report (@clashreport) December 29, 2025

Putin, surrounded by his generals, is making clear to the world that he remains in the driver’s seat – with all the leverage on the field of battle – and that Zelensky has no cards to play.

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

There is a rising market risk in 2026 that is largely overlooked as we wrap up this year. As discussed in the “Fed’s Soft Landing Narrative,” optimism about 2026 is running high.

Currently, investors are pricing in strong economic growth, robust earnings, and a smooth path of disinflation. Notably, Wall Street estimates suggest a significant acceleration in corporate profits, particularly among cyclical stocks and small- to mid-cap sectors. To wit:

“Wall Street currently expects the bottom 493 stocks to contribute more to earnings in 2026 than they have in the past 3 years. This is notable in that, over the past three years, the average growth rate for the bottom 493 stocks was less than 3%. Yet over the next 2 years, that earnings growth is expected to average above 11%.”

“Furthermore, the outlook is even more exuberant for the most economically sensitive stocks. Small and mid-cap companies struggled to produce earnings growth during the previous three years of robust economic growth, driven by monetary and fiscal stimulus. However, next year, even if the Fed’s soft landing narrative is valid, they are expected to see a surge in earnings growth rates of nearly 60%.”

There is nothing wrong with having an optimistic outlook when it comes to investing; however, “outlooks can change rapidly,” which is a significant market risk, particularly when expectations and valuations are elevated.

Notably, these forecasts rest on an assumption that the economy will not only avoid recession but reaccelerate in the face of waning inflation. As noted, equity markets have responded by pushing valuations higher across major indexes, with price-to-earnings ratios well above historical medians. Simultaneously, investors have rewarded narratives built on the idea of a soft landing and a return to pre-pandemic trends.

However, this narrative appears to overlook the trends in recent economic data. Inflation expectations have moderated, not because of increased demand, but due to weaker consumption and cooling labor dynamics. As recent economic data indicate, disinflation has accompanied slower GDP growth and a decline in personal consumption momentum. If the economy were indeed set to reaccelerate, these trends should be increasing rather than returning to historical averages.

The soft landing thesis posits a benign cycle in which inflation declines, growth remains stable, and earnings increase. Yet, that outcome would be historically rare. When inflation falls this quickly, it typically reflects a slowdown in demand rather than policy success. Additionally, the strong relationship between economic growth and earnings should not be dismissed. That disconnect exposes investors to market risk if growth does not materialize as expected and valuations are reconsidered.

With analysts expecting strong revenue growth and margin expansion despite rising input costs, global uncertainty, and declining employment, a market priced for perfection leaves little room for earnings misses or growth shocks. If those optimistic assumptions fail, market risk could rise abruptly.

Let’s dig in.

Structural Headwinds

As noted above, earnings growth is fundamentally tied to economic growth. When demand exceeds supply, companies expand output, raise prices, and increase profits. As discussed recently, this is why, without inflation, there can not be economic growth, increasing wages, and an improving standard of living. In other words, for there to be stronger economic growth and rising prosperity, prices must increase over time. Such is why the Fed targets a 2% inflation rate, thereby supporting 2% economic growth and stable employment levels.

However, the employment data over the last year doesn’t tell a story of substantial employment, rising wages, or a trend suggesting a more robust economic outlook. Instead, the latest data confirmed a deceleration in economic activity, as full-time employment (as a percentage of the population) declined.

The importance of full-time employment should not be readily dismissed. Full-time employment pays higher wages, provides family benefits, and allows for an expansion of consumption. The decline in full-time employment currently is normally associated with recessions rather than expansions. Economic growth, inflation, and personal consumption are trending lower, given that employment, particularly full-time employment, supports economic supply and demand.

Furthermore, economic growth relies heavily on consumer spending, which accounts for nearly 70% of U.S. GDP. For that consumption to persist or grow, consumers must have rising incomes, which come from employment and wage growth. Without job creation or real wage increases, consumption growth stagnates, and the earnings narrative breaks down. As shown, when economic growth declines, so do earnings growth rates.

Recent employment data show cracks in this cycle. While headline job numbers suggest continued hiring, the quality and composition of those jobs are weakening. Today we see part-time workers filling full-time positions, often with lower pay and fewer benefits. Labor force participation remains below pre-pandemic levels, and many prime-age workers are not returning. Most notably, the negative revision of every monthly employment report in 2025 further undermines the “strong economy” narrative.

Even where wages are rising nominally, inflation-adjusted wages tell a different story. Real wage growth has been flat or negative in several key sectors. As housing, energy, and service prices remain high, the squeeze of disposable income increases. As such, consumers compensate by drawing down savings or using credit, both of which are unsustainable long-term strategies.

The market risk in 2026, is that for corporate earnings to accelerate and meet Wall Street’s expecations, the consumer must be healthy. That means rising real wages and broad-based job creation. Without those pillars, top-line revenue growth slows, and margin pressures increase. Analysts projecting double-digit earnings growth into 2026 are assuming a demand-driven economy without the income growth needed to support it. That assumption is increasingly fragile. Without real economic growth, earnings become a product of financial engineering or cost-cutting, not organic expansion. Markets are pricing in a demand surge that the employment data do not confirm.

If this disconnect persists, Wall Street will revise earnings expectations lower.

Valuation Fragility

That last sentence is the most crucial. With valuations near cycle highs, (the S&P 500 trades at over 22x times forward earnings, which is well above its long-term average), such assume strong earnings growth and low discount rates. Yet both assumptions are vulnerable. If economic growth undershoots, earnings revisions will follow. Historically, earnings have tended to lag behind the economic cycle. As consumption softens, revenue growth stalls. Margins then compress, especially for companies with high labor or financing costs, and with narrow market breadth and concentration in mega-cap names, the market risk is a sudden repricing of those expectations.

Credit risk premiums remain compressed across all asset classes, from high-yield to investment-grade, which reflects a belief in Fed control and continued monetary easing. If those beliefs are shaken, volatility will return. Market participants are not expecting a scenario where all risk assets decline simultaneously, including stocks, crypto, precious metals, and international markets.

Implications for Investors

The market risk for investors is not a 2008-style collapse. However, a far more likely scenario is a long period of underperformance. That underperformance will likely be a function of earnings disappointment, weak growth, and multiple compression. Market analysts are currently pricing the market for acceleration. But those views may struggle is stagnation, and the “path of least resistance,” shifts from upward momentum to sideways drift or correction.

As such investors should continually monitor and assess the risk they are taking in portfolios.

Reassess exposure to high-multiple equities and overconcentrated sectors. While technologty drives index performance, valuations are high and if growth expectations are too high, tech earnings will likely fail to meet them. The same applies to consumer discretionary stocks tied to fragile spending.

Consider a more defensive position, focusing on free cash flow, balance sheet strength, dividends, and pricing power.

Add bonds to your portfolio to protect prinicpal and create income. Furthermore, in the event of a risk-off rotation, investors will seek the safety of bonds to reduce portfolio risk. Being there before the correction occurs can be beneficial to outcomes.

Liquidity should always be a priority. If risk aversion returns, liquidity conditions can tighten quickly. Investors consider a scenario where risk assets (stocks, commodities, metals, and cryptocurrencies) decline sharply as risk resets

A prudent approach is to reduce exposure to narrative-driven assets and increase allocations to quality. Investors should favor sectors with consistent earnings, low leverage, and stable dividends. Cash remains underappreciated as a strategic tool, and with real yields positive and volatility likely to rise, liquidity is a source of optionality.

The next two years will test the soft landing thesis. If growth falls short, earnings disappoint, or inflation returns, markets will face a reset. That reset may not be dramatic, but it will be painful for those overexposed to the current consensus.

The best defense is valuation discipline, risk awareness, and a willingness to question the prevailing narrative.

Trump’s military strikes against Islamic terror groups in Nigeria have been met with overall applause by Nigerian citizens and migrants residing in the US.  Authorities say the groups have links to jihadist networks in Mali and Niger and their members have settled in border communities, recruiting young people and imposing brutal controls.

Associated Muslim militants were responsible for numerous attacks on Christian communities and schools in the country in early 2025, including the coordinated massacre of 280 Christian farmers in the village of Yelwata; many victims burned alive or hacked to death. It was one of the worst single incidents of Christian slaughter in the past decade.

In a national statement, Nigeria’s information ministry said “precision strike operations” had been carried with the “explicit approval” of President Bola Tinubu and with “the full involvement of the armed forces of Nigeria”.  Trump brought global exposure to the attacks on Christians in the region, accusing the Nigerian government of apathy in the face of genocide. 

The event is being framed as a “joint operation” between Nigeria and the US, however, it is likely that international attention forced the hand of the current regime to cooperate with US military operations.  Nothing would have been done about the militants had Trump not stepped in.

Many Christian Nigerians abroad and migrants in the US are optimistic about the country’s prospects for peace and have applauded the strikes.  Nigeria is 56% Muslim and 43% Christian.  The northern provinces, controlled by Muslims, have instituted Sharia Law despite the country having a “secular constitution.”  This has created religious tensions across the nation and helped to enable escalating Islamic militant attacks. 

It’s good to see at least one group of third world migrants showing appreciation for US efforts.  

The establishment media in the west, however, is not happy about Trump’s efforts in Africa, and has been working diligently to deny that the conflict is driven by religious motives.  Though they are forced to admit that the strikes have had a positive effect on Nigeria’s Christian population, they continue to frame the killings of villagers as “land disputes” (take note of the seemingly scripted propaganda planted in the AP report below).

The motives of the media are obvious; third world immigration is an integral part of the multicultural agenda to destabilize the west and admitting that Islamic migrants might be a security hazard hurts that agenda.  They could not be more transparent, given the fact that journalists immediately tried to make the issue about immigration once news of the strikes hit the new feeds.

Western journalists have accused Trump of hypocrisy because of his block on immigration from a number of African nations including Nigeria.  They argue that Trump does not really want to help Christians because he won’t allow Nigerians to come to the US to escape the sectarian violence.

However, simply claiming to be Christian is not enough to gain US citizenship.  Trump’s position is clear – Third world populations need to fix their own countries rather than running to the US.  Despite the socialist “melting pot” narrative, America has never been obligated to take on the refugees of the world.  The Trump Administration’s intervention in Nigeria only shows that the President is serious about those people staying where they are so they can repair or replace their broken government.   

In July as Trump ramped up criticism of the Nigerian government’s handling of the situation, NPR attempted to paint the attacks as a “land dispute” over access to cattle grazing areas. They repeated the Nigerian Foreign Ministry’s claims that the events had “nothing to do with religion.”  In almost every case of Christians being hunted by Muslim militants, the media is on the side of the governments that allow the attacks to happen.   

A number of western media platforms dismiss or marginalize the attacks on Christian villages in Nigeria, claiming that “most victims are Muslims.”  What they don’t mention is that most Muslim “victims” are largely rival militants fighting for a superior position.  Christians have not involved themselves in the power struggle, yet, they are specifically targeted for extermination.  

Reports from the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law (Intersociety) state that over 7,000 Christians were killed in Nigeria in the first 220 days of 2025.  The bottom line is, Christians are disproportionately targeted by Islamic violence in Africa and African governments are content to let it happen.