Authored by Peter C. Earle via the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER),

For decades, New York City prided itself on being the financial capital of the world. It’s a place where money, culture, and power converge. And yet, as has been seen in San Francisco, Chicago, and other locations around the United States, New York is experiencing a steady exodus of millionaires and ultra-high-net-worth individuals. While some observers dismiss this as anecdotal or exaggerated, the facts paint a different picture: one with serious implications for the city’s fiscal health, social fabric, and attractiveness.

It is easy to forget that New York’s gleaming infrastructure, vast public services, and social programs are underwritten disproportionately by a tiny number of residents. Fewer than one percent of taxpayers account for more than 40 percent of all income tax revenue collected in the state, and a similar share in the city. Without those individuals, the ability of millions of ordinary New Yorkers to enjoy subsidized transit, robust public safety services, and cultural investments would collapse. In other words, and despite endless egalitarian rhetoric, the lifestyle of the masses is silently carried on the shoulders of the few.

The scale of the loss is becoming visible. Between 2019 and 2020, the number of New Yorkers earning between $150,000 and $750,000 fell by nearly six percent, while the number of true high earners—those making over $750,000—dropped by nearly 10 percent, according to the city’s Independent Budget Office. This erosion matters because the city’s top one percent—about 41,000 filers—pay more than 40 percent of all income taxes. The top 10 percent pay about two-thirds. Which means the remaining 90 percent of taxpayers contribute only about one-third of the city’s income tax revenue. When even a small share of these high earners disappears, the impact is seismic.

Recent migration trends confirm the damage. More than 125,000 New Yorkers have fled to Florida in just the past few years, carrying nearly $14 billion worth of income with them, according to the Citizens Budget Commission. About a third of those movers—more than 41,000 people—went to Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties between 2018 and 2022. Those escapes alone stripped New York City of an estimated $10 billion in adjusted gross income. When money and mobility align, no amount of political rhetoric can stop people from voting with their feet.

Into this fragile situation steps Zohran Mamdani, whose mayoral primary victory has been accompanied by a platform that includes a new “millionaire’s tax.”

His proposal would tack on an additional two-percent levy for New Yorkers earning more than $1 million a year, raising the combined city and state top rate to 16.776 percent—by far the highest in the nation.

Add federal obligations, and the total burden would rise to nearly 54 percent. That is not just taxation; it is confiscation.

Wealthy New Yorkers wouldn’t even need to flee to Florida to avoid it. A short move to Westchester, Long Island, or across the Hudson to New Jersey would suffice. As the Tax Foundation has noted, “a high earner doesn’t need to give up the convenience of the city, they just need to move outside the five boroughs.” Developers are already banding together to oppose Mamdani’s rent-control platform, while Florida realtors report a surge in inquiries from wealthy New Yorkers looking to relocate.

Rather than acknowledge this delicate balance, policymakers in Albany and City Hall continue to treat the wealthy as inexhaustible resources. Each subsequent budget cycle seems to bring fresh proposals for higher levies, justified by a reflexive invocation of “fair share.” For the city’s most mobile taxpayers, however, there is a limit. They are increasingly concluding that enough is enough.

Not to worry, though. Other U.S. states and cities are only too happy to receive them.

Florida has no state income tax and a climate that, quite literally, feels like a bonus. Texas markets itself as a business-friendly, family-friendly destination where capital is welcomed rather than penalized. The Lone Star State is even planning its own stock exchange to fight against corporate ESG/DEI mandates, among others. Even Connecticut, once derided as a commuter’s backwater, now makes a pitch as a calmer, lower-tax alternative just a train ride away.

It’s not just states.

Municipalities from Miami to Austin to Nashville are creating entire ecosystems—schools, cultural centers, financial services clusters—designed to attract, satisfy, and retain disaffected New Yorkers. And the migration data show that these efforts are paying off.

The most striking irony of this government-greed-driven exodus is that the very policies promoted as remedies for inequality are accelerating a new divide. On one side are jurisdictions with extractive tax regimes like New York, which are increasingly reliant on a shrinking base of wealthy residents. On the other side are “merely high-tax” or moderate-tax states that calibrate their revenue needs without driving out their most productive citizens. In attempting to punish the “haves” in the name of the “have-nots,” New York is in the process of creating an even sharper divide between places where the wealthy live and places they have left behind. The intended redistribution becomes a geographic one, with capital, philanthropy, and jobs following the departing millionaires.

Beyond dollars and cents, there is also a cultural cost. Wealthy New Yorkers are not just taxpayers; they are patrons of the arts, benefactors of hospitals, and funders of civic institutions. When they decamp to Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Wyoming, or elsewhere, they don’t merely take their checkbooks; they take their boards, galas, and fundraising networks. The very character of New York as a city of ambition progressively dims. A city that once attracted the world’s best and brightest risks becoming a place they leave once they have achieved the successes they sought.

The migration of millionaires is not an abstract threat. It is an early warning sign of the consequences of fiscal imbalance and political avarice. New York can continue to chase headlines with promises of soaking the rich, or it can recognize that prosperity depends on partnership, not punishment. If it chooses the former, the flight will only accelerate, and the city may wake up one day to find that its most valuable export is no longer finance or culture, but people.

Wealth, like love, does not stay long where it goes unappreciated.

*  *  * speaking of love *  *  *

Did a medium-sized canary just croak in the coalmine of consumer credit?

While the world and his pet rabbit was avidly glued to the screens, hanging on every word from Fed Chair Powell, something happened in a name that few have likely heard of that could have a much greater impact on markets.

After seeing its bonds rise week after week, seemingly amid confidence in the US consumer (especially at the lowest incomes)…

…prices for the almost $2 billion of debt behind subprime auto-lender Tricolor Holdings suddenly collapsed yesterday, leaving creditors across the US scrambling to stake their claim on the company’s remaining assets and contain their losses…

As Bloomberg reports, the details behind the collapse of Tricolor remain uncertain, with federal investigators looking into possible fraud and banks exploring whether the same collateral was pledged to multiple lenders.

In Dallas, the regional bank Triumph Financial Inc. has dispatched teams of employees to used-car lots, where they’re identifying and whisking away to safe locations the vehicles they believe are the collateral to their loans.

In midtown Manhattan, a boutique investment firm that built a position in Tricolor’s asset-backed bonds, Clear Haven Capital Management, has been calling other bondholders, urging them to band together and fight to keep the big banks away from the assets that belong to them.

Those banks, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Fifth Third Bancorp, have begun to forensically examine their own collateral to try to ascertain the magnitude of the losses.

This is part of what’s fueling the frantic rush – the sense that many of the details behind the collapse of Tricolor, a provider of high-interest car loans to undocumented workers, remain murky even a week after its bankruptcy filing.

Prominent among them: Was there fraud, as federal investigators are now looking into, and how prevalent was it?

“Everyone is in the dark as to how serious these allegations of fraud are, so bondholders and lenders are rushing to protect their interests,” said Boris Peresechensky, a portfolio manager at Orange Investment Advisors.

Two other big subprime auto lenders that declared bankruptcy in recent years — American Car Center and US Auto Sales — ended up costing some junior bondholders dearly, said Peresechensky.

Signs are emerging that it may have been widespread. Banks are exploring whether the same collateral was pledged to multiple lenders.

Bloomberg reports that people familiar with the probes say the suspected manipulation stretches back months, possibly longer.

Earlier this week, holders of Tricolor’s asset-backed bonds didn’t receive some scheduled payments, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

They also didn’t get a remittance report – the regular statement detailing cash collected from borrowers and how it’s distributed — the people said.

Tricolor opted to liquidate in bankruptcy rather than attempt a reorganization amid concerns over litigation risk and signs there weren’t enough assets to restructure, according to a person familiar with the decision.

The company listed more than 25,000 creditors, vendors and other affected parties in its bankruptcy filing.

The bottom line is a major (subprime) auto-lender just hit the wall in epic fashion (out of nowhere) as the Emperor’s clothes narrative of the so-called “strong consumer” (spending was solid in aggregate) were suddenly exposed as more evidence of the K-shaped economy Americans are living in (haves and have-nots) and the divergence is getting wider.

If collateral-backed subprime auto-lenders are collapsing, how long before default rates on Buy-Now, Pay-Later entities start to soar?

The Bear Traps Report’s Larry McDonald recently noted that BDCs and Private Credit entities are starting to creak – with some sizable names trading well off recent highs. While the driver for much of that pain appears to be AI data-center over-spend, contagion from these archaic credit assets (from subprime auto to BNPL) into the mainstream is not something anyone wants to experience again.

Is Tricolor Holdings the June 2007 Bear Stearns Structured-Credit Fund of 2025?

Authored by Martin Young via CoinTelegraph.com,

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has finally addressed some concerns over the lengthening Ethereum staking exit queue, which has now grown to 45 days. 

His response came after Galaxy Digital’s head of DeFi, Michael Marcantonio, called the exit queue length “troubling” on X and compared it to Solana, which only requires two days to unstake. He has since deleted the posts. 

“Unclear how a network that takes 45 days to return assets can serve as a suitable candidate to power the next era of global capital markets.”

Deleted post from Galaxy Digital’s DeFi head. Source: Etc.

However, Buterin seemingly took a more ideological stance on the subject, describing unstaking from Ethereum as “more like a soldier deciding to quit the army,” adding that staking is more about “taking on a solemn duty to defend the chain.”

“Friction in quitting is part of the deal. An army cannot hold together if any percent of it can suddenly leave at any time.”

Overall, the network remains highly secure with over a million active validators and 35.6 million ETH staked, or almost 30% of the entire supply. 

That being said, Buterin acknowledged the current staking queue design was not optimal, but reducing the constants would make the chain “much less trustworthy” for nodes that do not go online frequently. 

Ethereum exit queue surged to an all-time high last week. Source: ValidatorQueue

Galaxy Digital purchased $1.5 billion worth of Solana recently after partnering with Multicoin Capital and trading firm Jump Crypto in a Solana treasury firm. 

Galaxy Digital was also the first Nasdaq-listed company to tokenize its shares on Solana. 

Fighting the staking FUD

Marcantonio seemingly deleted the posts after pushback from others.

Former Consensys product manager Jimmy Ragosa called out Marcantonio and Galaxy Digital, stating that  from what he can gather from direct messages, the only thing the “relentless ETH FUD” has achieved is that “most entities with any vested interest in Ethereum are now reconsidering their business with Galaxy.”

Source: Jimmy Ragosa

“Apparently, Galaxy made their head of DeFi delete all of his Ethereum FUD,” said crypto lawyer Gabriel Shapiro, adding that “he was engaging in insanely gaslighty psyops.”  

“Frankly, I wish it had stayed up because it only made Ethereum look great both technologically and culturally, but oh well.”

“I’ll be recommending that people no longer do business with Galaxy,” said Ethereum educator Anthony Sassano, adding:

“Deleting tweets doesn’t change the fact that the guy is their ‘Head of DeFi’ and doesn’t understand the very basics of this industry and cares more about fudding Ethereum than the actual truth.”

Solana proponent Mike Dudas sided with Galaxy, stating, “folks with a ‘vested interest in Ethereum’ have to work with shitty bankers instead of Galaxy who has proven with Solana that they can drive significant value in transactions and bridge to a much broader group of stakeholders.”

Cointelegraph reached out to Marcantonio and Galaxy for comment.

Ethereum ecosystem remains healthy 

The Ethereum exit queue has dipped over the past few days, but remains high at 2.5 million ETH. However, a large portion of this is from Kiln Finance following an exploit. 

There are currently 512,000 ETH in the entry queue, which hit a two-year high recently amid institutional accumulation. 

Mark Zuckerberg introduced Meta Ray-Ban Display and Meta Neural Band on Wednesday, the tech giant’s first consumer-ready smart glasses with a built-in digital display.

Introducing Meta Ray-Ban Display: A Breakthrough Category of AI Glasses https://t.co/NmeQmjm4DU pic.twitter.com/V1iHfwQKTH

— Reality Labs at Meta (@RealityLabs) September 18, 2025

Oversized black-framed glasses have become a kind of status symbol within the Democratic Party – merely a contest of who can outdo whom with bigger black frames, while pushing endless streams of woke narratives. 

For everyday folks hoping for new AR glasses, Meta’s new glasses instead project a sense of unhinged liberal vibes… 

Even Mark Zuckerberg’s pre-launch interview was extremely awkward…

If you’re willing to spend $799 on a pair of AR glasses that give off progressive vibes, Goldman analyst Eric Sheridan has outlined the key takeaways from Meta Connect 2025 Keynote: 

AR/VR Hardware:

• Meta Ray-Ban Display – Meta announced both the Meta Ray-Ban Display, its first generation AI glasses with smart display, and Meta Neural Band, its companion neural interface wristband. Meta Ray-Ban Display includes a high resolution augmented reality display that enables various capabilities such as messaging, video chat, image and video capture and live subtitles & language translation. Available on 9/30, starting at $799.

• Ray-Ban Meta glasses – Meta introduced the next generation of its Ray-Ban Meta glasses, including new styles & colors, features (2x longer battery life; improved camera with 3k video) and new AI capabilities (Conversation Focus & Life AI – see below). Available now starting at $379.

• Oakley Meta glasses – Meta also introduced the next generation of its Oakley Meta HSTN glasses & announced new Oakley Meta Vanguard glasses. For Vanguard, this includes improved performance (122 degree field of view; improved video capabilities including 3k resolution and features such as stabilization, slow motion, hyperlapse and autocapture) and 3P partnership integrations (Garmin; Strava). Vanguard available for pre-order today starting at $499.

Software & Artificial Intelligence:

• New AI Features for glasses, including Conversation Focus (ability to amplify certain voices in your surroundings) and Live AI (path toward always-on AI assistance running in the background).

• Meta Horizon Studio – New studio for building VR worlds/experiences using Meta’s generative AI creation tools.

• Meta Horizon Engine – Meta’s new gaming engine built & optimized for the metaverse, including faster loading & rendering of VR worlds and early access to Hyperscape Capture (ability to capture real world places into immersive digital worlds via a Quest headset).

• Horizon TV – Meta’s new entertainment hub for streaming content on AR & VR headsets, including announced partnerships with Disney (Disney+, Hulu, ESPN), Universal Pictures and Blumhouse.

With Apple’s Vision Pro struggling to gain traction, how will Tim Cook respond now that Meta looks like it’s racing ahead in the smart-glasses space?

feeling really bad for the Meta OS team https://t.co/gkcXeaje7Y pic.twitter.com/RYjNcFs83a

— near (@nearcyan) September 18, 2025

ZeroHedge Pro subscribers can access the full note here.

Authored by Melanie Sun via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Justice (DOJ ) said on Sept. 16 that it is suing Oregon and Maine for failing to provide information on how their election offices maintain valid voter registration rolls.

The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division said in a statement that both states had declined to cooperate with the department’s requests for unredacted access to voter rolls and maintenance procedures, despite having allegedly given a private organization access to “identical information.”

“States simply cannot pick and choose which federal laws they will comply with, including our voting laws, which ensure that all American citizens have equal access to the ballot in federal elections,” Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon said.

“American citizens have a right to feel confident in the integrity of our electoral process, and the refusal of certain states to protect their citizens against vote dilution will result in legal consequences.”

States are granted broad discretion over how they conduct both state and federal elections. However, there are some federal laws, such as the Voting Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), and laws setting a uniform date for federal elections, that regulate the process and that states are required to adhere to when conducting elections.

Over the past several months, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has sent requests for voter registration-related information to at least 24 states, including requesting a complete list of all registered voters from at least 22 states.

In the lawsuit, the DOJ accused the two states and their secretaries of state of violating the NVRA, the Help America Vote Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1960 in their refusal to share information regarding election oversight.

The department said that Oregon and its secretary of state, Tobias Read, are “refusing to produce the current unredacted electronic copy of the state’s voter registration list, to provide information on the state’s voter list maintenance program, and to disclose registration information for any ineligible voters.”

It accused Maine and its secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, of “refusing to provide data regarding the removal of ineligible individuals and to produce an unredacted, computerized state voter registration list.”

Bellows, a Democrat, criticized the legal action.

“It is absurd that the Department of Justice is targeting our state when Republican and Democratic secretaries all across the country are fighting back against this federal abuse of power just like we are,” she said in a statement. “I stand by the integrity and professionalism of Maine’s dedicated state election officials.”

She also accused the DOJ of lying with its claim that her office shared the information it was requesting with a private organization.

Read, also a Democrat, said his office is committed to protecting voter privacy from the federal attempt at oversight.

“If the President wants to use the DOJ to go after his political opponents and undermine our elections, I look forward to seeing them in court,” Read said in a statement.

“I stand by my oath to the people of Oregon, and I will protect their rights and privacy.”

Neither of the two state offices responded to a request for comment by publication time.

The lawsuit against Maine comes after the Republican National Committee filed a complaint last week with the Justice Department alleging that Bellows refused to provide adequate information about how the state maintains its voter rolls.

Earlier this month, state officials in North Carolina acknowledged in a settlement with the DOJ that they had not collected from some voters a driver’s license number or another identifying number, as required by the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

Officials said they would remedy this by collecting the information required under federal law from registered voters.

Trump said on Aug. 30 that he would sign an executive order that would require a voter ID to vote.

The Trump administration filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court on Thursday to allow it to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from the central bank’s board while a lawsuit plays out in lower court over Cook’s ouster by President Trump last month. 

The request comes after a federal appeals court in Washington DC rejected the administration’s attempt to remove an order blocking Cook’s removal in a 2-1 decision the night before the Fed’s meeting earlier this week.

“This application involves yet another case of improper judicial interference with the President’s removal authority — here, interference with the President’s authority to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors for cause,” wrote  the administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General John Sauer. 

According to court filings, the Trump administration maintains that Cook committed mortgage fraud based on evidence provided by Federal Housing Finance Agency director Bill Pulte – which showed that Cook claimed two properties as her primary residence within weeks of each other. 

On Aug. 25, Trump announced that he was firing Cook from the seven-member Fed Board. Cook sued in response, resulting in a federal district court on Sept. 9 barring her removal while the suit plays out – which the appeals court upheld.

Sauer says that the Supreme Court, for various reasons, should stay the district court judge’s preliminary injunction reinstating Cook to the Fed, claiming that the DOJ is likely to prevail in the lawsuit “because Cook lacks a Fifth Amendment property interest in her continued service as a Governor of the Federal Reserve System,” and her job is not protected by due process considerations.

Sauer also disputed the judge’s alternative finding that Cook’s firing “for cause” was invalid because the alleged conduct occurred before she was appointed to the Fed.

“The Federal Reserve Act’s broad ‘for cause’ provision rules out removal for no reason at all, or for policy disagreement,” he wrote, adding “But so long as the President identifies a cause, the determination of ‘some cause relating to the conduct, ability, fitness, or competence of the officer’ is within the President’s unreviewable discretion.”

“Cook had made contradictory representations in two mortgage agreements a short time apart, claiming that both a property in Michigan and a property in Georgia would simultaneously serve as her principal residence,” Sauer continued. “Each mortgage agreement described the representation as material to the lender, reflecting the reality that lenders usually offer lower interest rates for principal-residence mortgages because they view such mortgages as less risky.”

“When her apparent misconduct came to light, the President determined that Cook’s ‘deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter’ renders her unfit to continue serving on the Federal Reserve Board, and at a minimum demonstrates ‘the sort of gross negligence in financial transactions that calls into question [her] competence and trustworthiness as a financial regulator.” 

Sauer also says that the district court judge “lacked authority to order reinstatement as an equitable remedy for the removal of an officer of the United States, as we have discussed in several recent stay applications.”

Cook has denied wrongdoing, and has argued that unproven allegations are not sufficient grounds for removing the Biden appointee. 

Authored by Melanie Sun via The Epoch Times,

A federal appeals court on Sept. 17 declined to lift a preliminary injunction blocking a plan by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to overhaul the department in line with the Trump administration’s policy priorities.

Attorneys general from 19 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit in May challenging Kennedy’s restructuring of HHS, including layoffs and the reorganization of several agencies, arguing that the changes violate federal law and the U.S. Constitution.

On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the Boston-based First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s claim that the states could not show they would be immediately harmed if the injunction were lifted pending an appeal. The panel noted that the lower court relied on hundreds of pages of testimony from state officials.

“The government does not explain how the district court clearly erred in crediting these uncontroverted facts,” the court said in an unsigned order.

Kennedy announced on March 27 that his department would “streamline the functions” of its federal workforce by consolidating subagencies, reducing the number of regional offices, and implementing a reduction-in-force plan that would impact 10,000 HHS employees. They were all offered buy-out options to incentivize them to quit ahead of the announced job cuts.

The restructuring plan looked to streamline 28 divisions into 15, and close half of the department’s 10 regional offices. Four HHS sub-agencies were named in the restructuring: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, the Administration for Children and Families’ Office of Head Start, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE).

Attorneys general filed a lawsuit in federal court in Rhode Island challenging the restructuring plan. Plaintiffs said the executive action violated the Administrative Procedure Act and exceeded the scope of executive authority, violating the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine and appropriations clause.

They also pointed to potential harms their states would face if the executive action were allowed to proceed, saying their agencies would be unable to conduct sufficient laboratory testing or process critical health data needed to track infectious diseases and improve maternal and infant health outcomes. They added that the reforms would create financial strain, forcing the states to cover funding gaps left by the pullback in federal resources.

The Trump administration had argued that the states’ case rested on speculation about what harms they would suffer as a result of changes to department services, and that any challenges to the firings had to be pursued by the federal employees themselves before the Merit Systems Protection Board.

In July, the District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs.

U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose ruled that the administration “does not have the authority to order, organize, or implement wholesale changes to the structure and function of the agencies created by Congress.”

Her injunction ordered the HHS to freeze its reduction-in-force and restructuring plans at the four agencies.

On Aug. 12, the government filed to temporarily lift the injunction, pending court proceedings.

In its appeal, the HHS said that the lower court ruling should be set aside as the lawsuit was functionally identical to two earlier cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court lifted orders requiring it to reinstate employees let go en masse at other agencies by the administration.

The Epoch Times contacted the HHS and the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, which is spearheading the lawsuit, for comment but received no response by publication time.

HHS’s mandate is to “enhance the health and well-being of all Americans, by providing for effective health and human services and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services,” according to its website.

Novo Nordisk shares jumped the most in 18 months in Copenhagen trading on Thursday after its diabetes wonder drug Ozempic beat Eli Lilly’s older drug Trulicity in a real-world survey of 60,000 Medicare patients with diabetes and heart disease. 

The new study was revealed at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes conference in Vienna earlier today. It showed that Medicare patients who took Ozempic were 23% less likely to suffer heart attacks, strokes, or death compared with those on Trulicity. 

Shares of Novo Nordisk in Copenhagen surged 7% on the announcement of the study, but remain down 36.5% year-to-date and more than 61.5% below the June 2024 peak of DKK 1,000. For Goldman analysts like Novo superbull James Quigley, the question is whether the 37% rebound since early August marks an actual bottom, or just another dead cat bounce.

Quigley penned a note to clients about the key takeaways from the new study presented at the EASD conference:

Novo hosted an R&D investor event in conjunction with the EASD conference in Vienna.

Our key takeaways were:

1. Amycretin is primarily an obesity drug not a diabetes drug and base case is a similar efficacy, tolerability and safety as CagriSema but with one API, with an upside case being a better profile than CagriSema,

2. Cagrilintide monotherapy trials will not use forced titration, could test higher doses, and will generate data in more subpopulations. On the need for a potential CVOT, the company said it is too early to say.

3. EVOKE/EVOKE+ is powered for 20% slowing in cognitive decline but can detect low teens % based on powering.

The company commented any statistically significant result would be seen as meaningful based on clinician feedback. Overall, our conversations with management as well as KOL commentary at the EASD conference further highlights to us that in order to be successful in obesity, companies will need for a broad pipeline supported by deep databases behind each asset, as obesity will not be a one size fits all market, particularly with new entrants on the horizon.

Related:

• Goldman, UBS React To Novo Nordisk Axing 9,000 Jobs, Slashing Guidance Amid GLP-1 Headwinds

• Novo Shares Gain As Wegovy Shows Big Edge Over Lilly’s Tirzepatide In Heart Study

ZeroHedge Pro Subs can read the full note here, along with more details on Quigley’s 12-month price target.

Authored by Nancy Lubale via CoinTelegraph.com,

The amount of Ether in the queue waiting to be unstaked has surged to its highest level, as investors may be looking to cash in on yearly profits.

Ether’s exit queue hits record $12B ETH

Ethereum’s exit queue surpassed 2.6 million ETH worth $12 billion last week, with a 44-day wait time.

This marked the largest amount of Ether ever set for withdrawal by the network’s validators, who are responsible for adding new blocks and verifying transactions in proposed blocks, playing a vital role in securing the Ethereum blockchain.

Data from ValidatorQueue noted that the number of active validators was above 1.05 million, with 29.4% of the total ETH supply staked, i.e., around 35.6 million ETH. 

“Ethereum staking exit queue goes parabolic,” macro analyst MartyPary commented on the largest validator exodus in crypto history.  

Number of Ether queued for exit. Source: Validator Queue

While this does not mean that all the validators are looking to sell their holdings, a significant portion of the over $12 billion may be offloaded to lock in profits, notably as the Ether price has risen 97% over the past 12 months.

“The Ethereum exit queue is at a record high, with huge amounts of $ETH now waiting to exit staking,” said crypto YouTuber Lark Davis in an X post, adding:

“Heavy sell pressure incoming.”

Meanwhile, the Ethereum staking entry queue reached its lowest level in four weeks, adding to fears that a surge in the exit queue could lead to a major sell-off.

More than 512,755 ETH, worth around $2.3 billion, were waiting to be staked at the time of writing, down from 959,717 ETH on Sept. 5, indicating a slowdown in demand for staking Ether.

Strong institutional demand allays ETF sell-off fears

Increasing accumulation and buying strength from Ether treasury companies and spot ETH exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are absorbing much of the selling pressure. 

Data from strategicethreserve.xyz highlights that collective holdings of strategic reserves and ETFs have surged 116% since July 1, climbing to 11,762,594 ETH from 5,445,458 ETH.

The sharp increase underscores a swift influx of Ether supply into the hands of major institutional and corporate players.

Ether treasuries and ETF holdings reserve. Source: strategicethreserve.xyz

The majority of these entities have or will stake the asset for additional yields for their strategies, which may boost the entry queue in the coming weeks.

Another bullish narrative is tied to the potential launch of ETH staking ETFs. This implies that some investors may be freeing up liquidity to re-enter these products later, effectively reshuffling their exposure without exiting the ETH market.

While the SEC’s final deadline for approval is set for April 2026, popular analyst Axel Bitblaze said the green light could come much sooner, possibly as early as October 2025.

“I know we have been waiting for the ETH ETFs approval, but now it’s only a matter of time,” the analyst wrote in a Tuesday X post, adding:

“BlackRock’s ETH staking approval next deadline is in October, and I think the approval will most likely happen.”

Capital continued to flow into crypto exchange-traded products (ETPs) last week, with Ethereum investment products attracting $646 million in inflows, marking a return of institutional investor appetite for ETH.

Another day, another Ukrainian drone attack on a Russian oil facility. This time a major Gazprom oil and petrochemical facility in the republic of Bashkortostan was struck on Thursday.

“Two drones attacked the Gazprom Neftekhim Salavat enterprise,” Bashkortostan regional head Radiy Khabirov stated on Telegram. He called it a “terrorist attack” and described that security guards opened fire on the drones while they were inbound, though there were no injuries in the attack.

Videos from the scene showed thick black smoke rising above the facility, as emergency crews responded to battle the blaze and assess the damage – which is uncertain.

Gazprom Neftekhim Salavat refinery is one of the country’s largest, ranked as Russia’s 10th-largest and processing around 10 million metric tons of oil annually, and a huge array of petroleum and chemical products. This isn’t the first time it was struck by drones in an attack, given an incident which happened in 2024.

At least ten separate Russian refineries have come under cross-border drone attack from Ukraine since only early August, which has served to reduce nation-wide refining output by nearly 20% – or roughly 1.1 million barrels per day – and wholesale oil prices in Russia have risen sharply.

Gazprom refinery in Russia’s Bashkortostan is having a rough morning. pic.twitter.com/d9iK0otLEi

— Jay in Kyiv (@JayinKyiv) September 18, 2025

Ukraine’s military and media have classified Russia’s refineries as essentially military targets, given they prop up funding of the armed forces as they execute Putin’s ‘special military operation’.

For example there was this early August statement from Ukrainian media:

According to Ukraine’s General Staff, the ELOU-AVT-6 primary oil processing unit, with an estimated annual capacity of 6 million tons, was hit.

The plant, which has a capacity of 13.8 million tons per year, was previously struck by Ukrainian drones on Aug. 2, forcing two of its three main refining units to halt operations.

Ukraine’s military said the facility plays a role in supporting Russia’s armed forces.

This reveals a concerted effort to permanently damage the Kremlin’s ability to fund the war. Newsmax has previously observed that “The impact has been felt nationwide. Motorists face fuel shortages, long lines, and record prices.”

Salavat oil refinery in Bashkortostan lies more than 800 miles from the Ukrainian border…

The report noted further, “Wholesale gasoline prices have jumped 54% since January, prompting authorities to suspend exports and impose rationing in some regions.”

Meanwhile, according to TASS on Thursday, “The Russian Finance Ministry is budgeting for a gradual decrease in dependence on oil and gas, with the oil cutoff price in the budget rule planned to fall to $55 per barrel by 2030, Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said at the Moscow Financial Forum.”

Siluanov said, “In order to make finances sustainable, we propose and budget for a reduction in the budget’s dependence on various restrictions, be they price or volume, on oil and gas revenues.”