International mail to the United States has plunged by more than 80% in one week after the Trump administration ended a long-abused tax exemption on small packages, prompting widespread suspensions of postal services around the world, according to the Universal Postal Union (UPU).

In late July, the U.S. government announced it would revoke duty-free treatment for low-value parcels entering the country. The change, which took effect Aug. 29, has rattled global logistics networks and forced dozens of national postal operators to halt or scale back shipments to the U.S.

The UPU, a United Nations agency that oversees global postal cooperation, said 88 postal operators have either fully or partially suspended service to the U.S. Among them are major national carriers, including Germany’s Deutsche Post, Britain’s Royal Mail, and postal authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Postal services in India, Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the U.K. are no longer accepting most U.S.-bound parcels, citing logistical disruptions and uncertainty over customs processing under the new tariff regime.

According to UPU data, postal traffic to the U.S. on Aug. 29 fell 81% compared with the previous week. “Furthermore, 88 postal operators informed the UPU they have suspended some or all postal services to the US until a solution is implemented,” the agency said in a statement.

*  *  * 

Astaxanthin is our top-selling supplement. It’s an extremely potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory. Read about it here, and buy some from us here. Up to 20% off if you get 3 bottles & subscribe. Thank you for your support.

*  *  *

UPU Director General Masahiko Metoki said the organization is working with affected postal services and U.S. authorities on a “rapid technical solution” to restore normal mail flows. However, he provided no timeline for when shipments might resume.

The Bern-based UPU, founded in 1874 and representing 192 member countries, sets international postal rules and facilitates cooperation among national mail systems. While the agency has mediated disputes before, industry analysts warn the current disruption highlights vulnerabilities in global supply chains that depend on inexpensive cross-border shipping.

The sudden halt comes amid mounting trade frictions as Washington uses tariff policy to rebalance foreign commerce. For small businesses, e-commerce sellers, and consumers relying on international packages, the suspension has created uncertainty and extended delivery delays.

Without an agreement, logistics experts warn that U.S. buyers and overseas exporters alike could face lasting disruptions in the global flow of goods – underscoring how deeply interconnected the world’s postal infrastructure has become.

Authored by Amin Haqshanas via CoinTelegraph.com,

Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino has denied recent rumors that the stablecoin issuer is offloading its Bitcoin holdings to buy gold.

In a Sunday post on X, Ardoino said the company “didn’t sell any Bitcoin,” and reaffirmed its strategy of allocating profits into assets like “Bitcoin, gold, and land.”

The comments came in response to speculation from YouTuber Clive Thompson, who cited Tether’s Q1 and Q2 2025 attestation data from BDO to claim the firm had reduced its Bitcoin position. Thompson pointed to a drop from 92,650 BTC in Q1 to 83,274 BTC in Q2 as evidence of a sell-off.

However, Jan3 CEO Samson Mow debunked the claim, noting that Tether transferred 19,800 BTC to a separate initiative called Twenty One Capital (XXI) during the same period. That included 14,000 BTC sent in June and another 5,800 BTC in July.

Tether CEO denies Bitcoin sell-off rumors. Source: Paolo Ardoino

Tether moves $3.9 billion in BTC to XXI

In early June, Tether moved over 37,000 BTC, worth approximately $3.9 billion, across numerous transactions to support XXI, a Bitcoin-native financial platform led by Strike CEO Jack Mallers.

“Tether would have had 4,624 BTC more than at the end of Q1 if the transfer is accounted for,” Mow explained, adding that the firm actually increased its net holdings.

Ardoino echoed the explanation, saying the Bitcoin was moved, not sold. “While the world continues to get darker, Tether will continue to invest part of its profits into safe assets,” he wrote.

Tether, the issuer of the USDt stablecoin, holds over 100,521 BTC, worth around $11.17 billion, according to data from BitcoinTreasuries.NET.

Tether holds over 100,000 BTC. Source: BitcoinTreasuries.NET

El Salvador buys $50 million in gold

Tether’s Bitcoin sell-off rumors came as El Salvador revealed it has added 13,999 troy ounces of gold worth $50 million to its foreign reserves, marking its first gold acquisition since 1990. The central bank said the move is part of a diversification strategy to reduce reliance on the US dollar.

Before turning to gold, El Salvador built a $700 million Bitcoin reserve, holding 6,292 BTC. However, an International Monetary Fund report in July claimed that the Central American country has not made any new Bitcoin purchases since February.

For some reason, Germany loves recruiting migrants into its police force in the name of diversity. In 2022, roughly 42% of police recruits who took the most common path into Berlin’s police force were migrants or came from migrant families, according to a major survey (37% including all pathways). 

What’s more, Berlin is the only German state where the proportion of new police recruits with a migration background matches or exceeds the city’s own population share (35%) according to that same survey. 

Now, (shocker!) roughly 55% of Germany’s new police recruits don’t meet basic German language standards – so obviously that percentage of migrant recruits went way up. 

Out of 240 police trainees who began their training in spring 2025, a staggering 132 recruits, roughly 55% need extra German-language support, the Berlin Police confirmed to Nius (via Apollo News).

The problem, authorities say, hits hardest in the first semester of training. “About half of the new recruits require regular language support at the start of their training,” the police statement said. However, they noted that the need for assistance drops over time as recruits progress through the program.

No word on where these recruits are migrating from. Maybe it’s the Poles? The Turks?

Police Blame Broader Social Decline

Berlin’s police stressed this isn’t just a law enforcement issue, it’s part of a nationwide trend of falling written-language skills.

Authorities cited multiple causes:

• Teacher shortages
• Increasing diversity in classrooms
• Rising demands on schools, particularly in German language instruction and digital media literacy

The agency also pointed to cultural and technological shifts as contributing factors. Young people are growing up in a world “where written text is everywhere,” the statement said, but that doesn’t mean they’re writing it correctly.

“There are hardly any error-free texts anymore,” the police noted, blaming a growing reliance on technology like spellcheck, autocorrect, and AI tools for weakening spelling and grammar skills.

High Stakes for Future Officers

For Berlin’s future officers, language proficiency isn’t optional, it’s required by law. Police trainees must demonstrate C2-level German fluency – the highest possible level under the Common European Framework of Reference – by the end of their training.

That proficiency is tested through a final exam. Failing twice means automatic dismissal from the police force under Berlin’s Police Act, the agency confirmed.

Berlin’s recruitment challenges come amid growing concerns about Germany’s education system, integration policies, and workforce shortages. But for law enforcement specifically, the stakes are higher than ever: police officers must be able to write reports, testify in court, and communicate flawlessly in complex, high-pressure situations.

Bigger Questions About Integration and Standards

The numbers highlight a broader debate over educational decline, integration policy, and workforce standards in Germany. Critics argue that lowering expectations in schools, combined with rising classroom heterogeneity, has left new generations less prepared for professional demands, especially in fields like policing, where precision in language can affect public safety.

As Berlin struggles to recruit and train enough officers, questions are mounting about whether Germany’s schools are adequately preparing graduates for essential roles, and whether institutions like the police force will eventually lower entry requirements to keep up with staffing shortages.

“Good language skills are mandatory for the job,” the Berlin Police stressed.

The global industrial robotics market is on a sharp growth trajectory, projected to hit $10.2 billion in sales by 2025.

As factories automate and smart manufacturing expands, robotics play an increasingly vital role in production. By 2025, industrial robots are expected to handle nearly 60% of new installations in the automotive and electronics sectors alone.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, breaks down the market share of leading industrial robotics manufacturers.

The data for this graphic comes from Statista’s Market Insights.

ABB and Epson Lead the Pack

Switzerland’s ABB and Japan’s Epson each hold a 13% share of the global market, making them the two largest manufacturers of industrial robots. ABB’s reach spans multiple industries, while Epson focuses heavily on precision automation for electronics and small-part assembly.

Japan’s Dominance in Robotics

Japanese companies represent half of the top 10 manufacturers, including Epson, Fanuc (11%), Kawasaki (8%), Yaskawa (8%), and Denso (4%). Japan’s decades-long investment in robotics R&D and its export-driven manufacturing economy have cemented its leadership in the sector.

This deep bench of robotics companies has enabled Japan to cater to both domestic and global markets with cutting-edge automation solutions.

Fragmentation and Emerging Players

Beyond the top players, 32% of the market is occupied by smaller firms or those with regional dominance. Companies like Universal Robots (Denmark), KUKA (Germany), and Comau (Italy) each capture smaller but significant market segments.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The 10 Most-Used AI Chatbots in 2025 on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

The Bundestag’s Budget Committee reached agreement on Friday regarding this year’s federal budget. In the end, record debt remains, publicly masked with accounting tricks and hopeful rhetoric. Friedrich Merz is driving Germany deeper into a debt spiral.

Political chaos in Berlin, including early elections and failed budget negotiations, delayed the adoption of the federal budget this year. On Friday, the Union parties reached agreement with the SPD in the Budget Committee on the final budget. Germany will spend €502.55 billion over the course of the year, continuing its fiscal record chase – year after year, the political circus demands ever-increasing allocations.

There is no talk of austerity or structural consolidation of state finances, despite the deep economic depression in the private sector. Still, on Friday, the term “gamechanger” circulated in coalition circles with regard to the budget.

A Budget of Superlatives

It was SPD member Torsten Rudolph who, looking at this mega-budget in the midst of the economic catastrophe, spoke of a gamechanger, echoing the enthusiasm of his colleague Christian Haase of the Union, who called the debt budget a budget of superlatives.

And in fact, they are essentially correct. If one calculates realistically and adds the debt hidden in special funds to the official debt, the total comes to €140 billion this year, equating to a net new debt of 3.3% of GDP. Germany is now violating all Maastricht criteria, quietly buried by EU central planners and statists in the eternal hunting grounds of fiscal euphemisms.

With particular pride, government officials pointed to the increase in the defense budget to €90 billion initially, set to rise to €150 billion in the coming years. Haase expressed confidence that this would send the strongest signal to opponents worldwide: Germany is making itself defensible once more. Alongside this spending euphoria comes a manic paranoia – Berlin is stirring a fiscal cauldron that threatens to boil over.

Champagne Popping in the Arms Industry

Meanwhile, the German arms industry is likely celebrating. Berlin is vigorously building a second artificial economy – alongside the already failed green planned economy. Government circles evidently believe that by propagandistically portraying Russia as a potential invader, the population has been sufficiently aligned to extract the resources necessary for building its own war economy.

That is precisely where this is heading. Every budget deficit shifts the burden to future taxpayers – returning either as inflation or higher taxes like a boomerang.

It is almost unbelievable: Germany’s defense budget last year totaled around €78 billion, about two percent of GDP.

Had it been invested strategically in cutting-edge defense technologies, it would have more than adequately supported the defense of a country surrounded exclusively by allies and friends. Yet in Brussels as well as Berlin, the prevailing belief is that the state must overcome structural weaknesses in the economy through artificially generated demand. These are well-worn Keynesian recipes – leaving nothing in their wake but rising debt and growing poverty.

Continuing the Spiral

The debt orgy is set to continue spiraling in the coming years. For 2026, Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil plans a budget of €520.5 billion – a further increase of four percent.

Meanwhile – and it bears repeating – the private sector continues to shrink, which will inevitably depress tax revenues. All financial planning in Berlin is therefore built on sand, relying on far too optimistic assumptions. Compared to what Klingbeil and the budgeters still face, the 2025 and 2026 budgets are almost a breeze.

Already, huge funding gaps are emerging: around €34 billion is missing for 2027, the ministry notes a “need for action” of €63.8 billion for 2028, and a gap of €74 billion looms for 2029.

Some of the causes are homegrown: the federal government is compensating for state tax shortfalls, expanding the mothers’ pension a year earlier than initially planned, and simultaneously repaying extensive COVID-era loans. Klingbeil stresses that no previous coalition in Germany’s history has faced a €30 billion gap. This is why the vice chancellor has already begun work on the next budget months earlier than usual.

The “Gamechanger” Is Actually an Accelerator

The gaps in social budgets will dramatically widen in the coming months and years, rooted solely in the ideological overreach of policy. The subsequent tax-raising orgy has already been prepared in the media, so the public is more or less primed for it. The state’s share of GDP, now at 50 percent, will reach French-style heights of 57 percent or more in the coming years.

Germany is thus heading inexorably toward socialism. The federal budget is therefore not a “gamechanger” – it is a fire accelerant.

Unless the bond market forces a brutal budget consolidation through dramatically rising yields in the coming years, Chancellor Friedrich Merz will go down in German history as the first post-WWII leader to plunge the country into a debt spiral.

No one in Berlin will then be able to claim they underestimated the economic situation. Germany’s collapse unfolds in the blazing light of the brightest day.

The Federal Republic has regressed evolutionarily into a party state, where a fatal consensus among the political cartel governs the strategy to overcome the economic crisis. The very cancer that triggered the crisis – ideological regulation and brutal statism – is now artificially encouraged to metastasize. Germany is once again the sick man of Europe, albeit surrounded by other severely ailing problem patients.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Authored by Emmanuel Rincon via the American Institute for Economic Research,

It took 20 years to defeat Evo Morales’s Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) in Bolivia through elections.

Two decades of political battle lines, along with a so-called “cultural war,” run deep in the region.

MAS rose to power thanks to the financing it received from Hugo Chávez, who, using the vast pockets of Venezuela’s oil rents, injected money into campaigns across almost every country in the continent. For a long stretch, he and his allies virtually took control of South America—except for Colombia.

The Venezuelan crisis left them exposed, however. Not only did the money used to fund political campaigns run out, but the tragic example of Chávez and Maduro’s socialism—driving more than nine million people to flee their country in search of better living conditions—became the starkest warning of the chaos caused by a system in which the State regulates and controls the economy at the same time.

On August 17, it wasn’t just that the left lost power in Bolivia. What was most shocking was the crushing manner in which it happened. Beyond local factors, an unexpected external influence also played a role: Javier Milei’s rise in Argentina.

The Electoral Collapse of the Socialist Option

The name of Bolivia’s next president is still unknown; Opposition figures Rodrigo Paz and Tuto Quiroga advanced to the runoff scheduled for Oct. 19. The ruling MAS, by contrast, suffered a historic defeat: its candidate failed to reach 4 percent of the vote, and in the legislature, socialists saw their representation slashed from 75 seats to just one. This collapse was also fueled by internal divisions.

Evo Morales, the party’s historic leader, had initially backed Luis Arce. Once in office, though, Arce began to distance himself from Morales, partly due to Morales’ interference in government decisions and partly because of ephebophilia allegations against him—charges for which he was ultimately convicted, though he remains free, protected by what he calls his “indigenous praetorian guard.”

But politics alone can’t explain MAS’s downfall. Bolivia was experiencing one of its worst economic crises in decades.

Many factors contributed, including:

• Collapse of the energy sector: Gas production, the country’s main revenue source, plummeted from 60 million cubic meters per day in 2014–2015 to just 28 million in 2025. Mismanagement and lack of maintenance slashed exports and so, foreign trade.

• Depleted reserves: In 2014, Bolivia held $15 billion in international reserves, but by 2025 that figure had dropped to under $2 billion. This left the government unable to maintain subsidies or import fuel normally.

• Shortages of diesel and gasoline: 66 percent of stations stopped selling diesel and 38 percent stopped selling gasoline. In many cities, lines stretched over 11 hours. The crisis hit agriculture and transportation so severely that the government authorized payments in cryptocurrency to import fuel.

• Food crisis and inflation: Prices of staples such as rice, meat, and fish rose as much as 58 percent in a single year. Annual inflation reached 23 percent in June 2025, with food inflation hovering between 17–24 percent.

• Widespread poverty: According to the World Bank, over 35 percent of Bolivians now live in poverty, with extreme poverty around 11 percent. Many households cut back from three meals a day to just one.

• Debt and fiscal deficit: Public debt hit 95 percent of GDP at the end of 2024, while the fiscal deficit surpassed seven percent of GDP, leaving no fiscal margin.

Ordinary Bolivians felt this collapse firsthand: endless gas station lines, skyrocketing food prices, and the impossibility of accessing dollars as their local currencies became worthless. That combination eroded whatever support MAS still had left.

The Milei Factor

Meanwhile, next door in Argentina—a country that had faced a similar crisis years earlier—a wild-haired libertarian was steering the nation onto a new course. He had campaigned with a chainsaw as his symbol, vowing to slash public spending, government payrolls, and state control of the economy, all while shouting, “Long live freedom, damn it!”

At first, few took him seriously. But within two years, he became an international phenomenon. Milei won the presidency against all odds and began implementing exactly what he promised by shrinking the state and freeing the economy.

Milei inherited Argentina with 211.4 percent annual inflation in December 2023. By May 2025, the consumer price index rose only 1.5 percent—the lowest in five years. Poverty fell from 52.9 percent to 38.1 percent. A country once seen as doomed to hyperinflation and misery began to rapidly recover.

Bolivians took notice. Both Rodrigo Paz and Tuto Quiroga—the candidates who made it to the runoff—have pledged to cut public spending and reduce the size of the state. This shift has already become a regional trend.

The Rightward Turn in Latin America

Before MAS’s defeat in Bolivia, Ecuador had elected Daniel Noboa, a president closer to the United States and more distant from the region’s socialist regimes. Around the same time, Argentina’s Javier Milei had secured his own victory. Now it’s Bolivia. Step by step, the political map of the region is shifting.

In the coming months, presidential elections will take place in Chile and Honduras—both governed by the left. Polls in both countries currently show center-right candidates with strong chances of victory. These candidates openly reject socialism, criticize excessive state intervention, denounce the brutality of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, and advocate for strategic partnerships with the United States rather than China, Russia, or Iran.

Not all of them can be described as “libertarians” or as followers of Hayek’s economic thought, like Milei. But they are far removed from the region’s recent enmeshment in statism, repression, and narcotrafficking cartels. They also appear willing to cooperate with Washington on regional security, migration, and economic matters.

What’s remarkable is how the Argentine phenomenon has shifted the regional dynamic.

In a Latin America long accustomed to government handouts, presidential candidates no longer compete to offer more subsidies and social programs. They now compete to promise deeper cuts, less government, and greater individual freedoms.

The cry of “Long live freedom, damn it!” began in Buenos Aires, echoed in La Paz, and the rest of Latin America now awaits its turn at the ballot box, to join the libertarian wave that seems to be reshaping the continent’s political landscape.

Submitted by Ronan Manly of the Sound Money Report 

While Bitcoin’s fixed 21 million coin cap was designed to counteract fiat inflation and mirror gold’s scarcity, a massive pool of permanently lost coins further tightens supply.

Estimates from on-chain analyses suggest that between 2.3 million and an incredible 7.8 million BTC (roughly between 11—37% of total supply), may have vanished forever, trapped in lost wallets, forgotten keys, or in addresses abandoned due to unexpected deaths. These ‘zombie’ or ‘ghost’ coins then effectively reduce Bitcoin’s effective circulating supply from the current 19.9 million to as low as a range of 12.1—17.6 million BTC.

A Donation to Everyone

As well as intensifying Bitcoin’s existing inherent scarcity, coins that permanently vanish boost the true value of all remaining Bitcoins. As Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator/creators, stated in a foresightful observation in April 2010 in a post on the BitcoinTalk forum: “Lost coins only make everyone else’s coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone.”

The lost coin range estimate (2.3—7.8 million) also comfortably exceeds the combined total of Bitcoin ETF and corporate treasury holdings which together total approximately 2.2 million BTC, a point rarely highlighted by a mainstream financial media fixated on the latest Blackrock Bitcoin ETF inflows and [Micro]Strategy’s latest BTC purchases.

No Keys, No Coins

Bitcoin’s rarity is thus magnified by these permanent losses, as the lost coin supply shock increases the value of every remaining coin, in contrast to traditional centralised assets such as stocks or bonds, In Bitcoin, there is no safety net. Once access is gone, the coins are effectively removed from circulation.

With a self-custodial architecture of ‘be your own bank’ but on an immutable blockchain, any lost and inaccessible coins on the Bitcoin network remain visible but untouchable. There is no bank and no bailout – only the owner and their private keys.

The familiar warning about exchange-held BTC of “not your keys, not your coins” now becomes the even more dramatic “no keys, no coins” in the off-exchange world.

Bitcoin relies on private keys (unique 256-bit cryptographic strings) to control and transfer ownership between addresses. Forgotten passwords, lost seed phrases, overwritten files, corrupted drives, or discarded hardware all result in irreversible inaccessibility.

Real-World Losses

Real-world cases highlight the dramatic scale and drama of lost Bitcoin. In 2013, the now infamous Welsh IT engineer James Howells accidentally discarded a hard drive containing private keys to 8,000 BTC in a landfill, worth roughly USD 900mn at current prices. But local city council rulings about environmental regulations prevent the obsessed Howells from launching a search for the lost hard drive.

Stefan Thomas, former Ripple CTO, lost access to 7,002 BTC (circa USD 777mn today) after forgetting his IronKey hard drive password, which locks permanently after 10 failed guesses. In January 2021, with two attempts left, Thomas described to the New York Times his repeated, desperate, and unsuccessful efforts to regain access.

Deaths also contribute to Bitcoin inaccessibility when holders die without succession plans. Gerald Cotten, CEO of Canadian crypto exchange QuadrigaCX, allegedly died in 2018 without revealing how to access USD 190mn in client funds, which included substantial Bitcoin holdings.

Romanian early Bitcoin miner Mircea Popescu drowned off a Costa Rica beach in 2021, widely rumoured to have left up to 1 million BTC inaccessible. (potentially worth USD 111bn). While the size of Popescu’s BTC holdings is unproven, he was known to have had sizeable holdings.

And then there’s Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, who pulled his own vanishing act in April 2011, leaving behind an estimated 1 million BTC mined between 2009— 2010. This Satoshi stash is now possibly ‘lost’ forever, or has been left intentionally dormant as a ‘donation’ to the network.

Estimating the Extent of Loss

But just how many coins may be gone forever? Numerous studies have utilised blockchain analytics, wallet inactivity metrics, and even factor in human behaviour to try and pin down the extent of lost and inaccessible Bitcoins.

In a May 2025 report, Ledger cites analyst estimates of between 2.3—3.7 million lost Bitcoins, representing 11—18% of Bitcoin’s max 21 million coin supply. Cane Island Digital’s Timothy Peterson, in a June 2025 report, estimates over 6 million BTC irretrievably lost, potentially reaching 7 million by late 2025.

In 2023, Glassnode, the blockchain data and on-chain analytics platform, estimated approximately 7.8 million BTC or 39% of mined supply, were either “HODLed or lost coins”, although this may include dormant wallets held intentionally, which would overstate the estimate. This came from a Glassnode study in conjunction with ARK Invest, which used a metric of ‘Vaulted Supply’ aka “HODLed or lost coins,” which “multiplies outstanding supply times vaultedness to measure the number of coins that have not been moved. Either they are in strong hands, or they are lost.”

In June 2025, Fidelity Digital Assets estimated that Bitcoin’s ancient supply, defined as the amount of bitcoin that has not moved for 10 years or more, accounted for over 17% of total issued supply, which is terms of BTC is over 3.3 million coins. In late 2024, River Financial, a Bitcoin financial institution were citing 3-4 million BTC as lost.

Despite varying methodologies, these studies, as a group, converge on a range of 2.3—7.8 million BTC lost, with the higher estimates like Glassnode’s and Peterson’s potentially overstated due to combining dormant and truly lost coins. Whatever the exact number, this range highlights a substantial and growing loss of Bitcoin, which enhances the scarcity of the remaining supply.

Losses vs ETFs and Corporate Treasuries

Comparing this loss range to the high-profile holdings of Bitcoin ETFs and corporate treasuries is eye-opening. As of August 2025, spot Bitcoin ETFs collectively held about 1,036,000 BTC or 5–6% of the roughly 19.9 million BTC so far mined, with Blackrock’s IBIT holding approximately 555,000 BTC of that total.

Corporate and treasury holders add another layer, with the top 100 corporates holding a combined 988,000 BTC (5% of the mined total) according to the Bitcoin Treasuries website, chief among them MicroStrategy (rebranded as Strategy) with 632,457 BTC, and such well-known names as MARA Holdings (50,639 BTC), Riot Platforms (19,225 BTC), and Japan’s Metaplanet (18,113 BTC).

Combining ETF plus corporate BTC holdings yields approximately 2.2 million, which is even less than the lower bound for estimated lost BTC of 2.3 million, and is a vivid illustration of the sheer scale of inaccessible coins. In other words, there is a hidden supply shock that the market has not yet fully processed, one which dwarfs both the US Bitcoin ETF inflows and Michael Saylor’s buying sprees.

From a circulating supply of 19.9 million BTC, subtract 5 million lost coins (midpoint estimate) and 2.2 million institutional holdings to get 12.7 million BTC in individual hands. Assume 30% of this (~ 3.8 million) is HODLed by long-term investors, which tallies with Glassnode’s 70% ‘unmoved supply’, which includes institutional and some misclassified lost coins.

Shrinking Free Float

This allows us to calculate a Bitcoin “Free Float”, that may be available to trade in the public market:19.9 million BTC mined so far, minus 5 million (lost), minus 2.2 million (institutionally held), minus 3.8 million (HODLed by individuals) = a free float of just 8.9 million BTC, or 42% of the 21 million total supply, and 45% of circulating supply. That is far less than the free float of S&P 500 stocks, which have a free float of 70—90%, and where ‘lost’ shares don’t exist as the centralised system can reissue them, unlike Bitcoin’s unforgiving blockchain.

The reported Bitcoin market cap of over USD 2.1trn market cap (19.9 million * USD 109,000) then is also a mirage, and is overstated by ~USD 500bn due to counting lost ‘ghost’ coins. With 5 million coins lost, the true supply is ~14.9 million BTC, which results in a real market cap of ~USD 1.6trn.

Conclusion

Bitcoin is scarcer than the market realises. Lost Bitcoins of between 2.3—7.8 million (11—37%) reduce accessible supply from 19.9 million to between 12.1—17.6 million. Irrecoverable coins inflate the value of every remaining coin, and intensify Bitcoin’s narrative as a store of value even rarer than gold. The widely accepted market cap of USD 2.1trn is overstated by about USD 500bn, with the true market cap near USD 1.6trn.

This silent supply shock, which dwarfs institutional demand and is ignored and underestimated by the mainstream media, positions Bitcoin not just as digital gold but as an asset with unparalleled rarity. It also has the potential to trigger a seismic price surge as the market wakes up to the scarcer than realised reality, and a free float barely half its total supply.

*  *  *

Top sellers this week:

Steak Lover’s Bundle

Rancher’s Classics 

Rancher’s Seasoning Trio

Raw Organic Honey

Authored by Eva Fu & Frank Fang via The Epoch Times,

China’s state-owned broadcaster has rescinded international wire agency access to a hot mic video of Chinese and Russian leaders discussing longevity and organ transplants, an effort that shows the Chinese regime’s fear of attention on the topic, critics say.

The open mic exchange between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping took place in Beijing on Sept. 3, as the two leaders walked together ahead of a military parade commemorating World War II.

Xi at the parade told Putin that “these days at 70 you are still a child,” prompting Putin to remark that continued organ transplants could allow one to live younger and even reach immortality. Xi in response said that it is predicted that there’s a chance of humans living to 150 years old.

The conversation became global news and sparked discussions about the Chinese regime’s state-sanctioned forced organ harvesting, a taboo topic in China. CCTV has since taken down the livestream video that captured the exchange and removed the moment from replays.

CCTV also sent a letter through its lawyer to Reuters—which licensed the video through CCTV and edited it into a four-minute clip—requesting the news agency to remove the footage on the grounds that the clips Reuters published exceeded the agreed-upon scope.

CCTV lawyer He Danning claimed Reuters’ “editorial treatment applied to this material has resulted in a clear misrepresentation of the facts and statements contained within the licensed feed.”

Reuters withdrew the video and issued a “kill” notice to its clients on Sept. 5. The agency said it had earlier distributed the clip to more than 1,000 media clients around the world, including major international news broadcasters and TV stations.

In a statement, Reuters said it was removing the content because it no longer has the legal permission to publish this copyrighted material.

“We stand by the accuracy of what we published. We have carefully reviewed the published footage, and we have found no reason to believe Reuters longstanding commitment to accurate, unbiased journalism has been compromised,” Reuters stated.

According to the London-based China Tribunal, forced organ harvesting has taken place in China for years “on a significant scale,” and practitioners of the Falun Gong spiritual group are the primary victims. It said that persecuted religious minorities including Uyghurs are also potential targets. Since 1999, millions of Falun Gong practitioners have been incarcerated in prisons, labor camps, and other facilities, with hundreds of thousands tortured and untold numbers persecuted to death, according to the Falun Dafa Information Center.

The International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China (ETAC), an Australian advocacy group comprising lawyers, medical professionals, researchers, and human rights advocates, said it was not surprised by CCTV’s demand, considering that organ transplants in China “are linked to crimes against humanity.”

“The now-withdrawn ‘hot mic’ recording between Xi and Putin highlighted the possibility of using organ transplants to seek immortality, rather than to treat seriously ill patients,” ETAC said in a statement to The Epoch Times.

“Such a conversation in China immediately raises the spectre of forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience.”

The group said the incident should be “a reminder of the responsibility of media outlets to resist undue influence, the necessity for governments to respect press freedom, and the urgency of addressing credible allegations of forced organ harvesting and other human rights abuses in China.”

“Efforts to suppress or dilute media coverage risk silencing victims and obstructing informed public debate. Independent journalism is critical in holding governments accountable, especially when issues involve systemic human rights violations.”

Two pieces of U.S. legislation that aim to sanction perpetrators of forced organ harvesting—the Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act and the Falun Gong Protection Act—have already been approved by the House. The Uyghur Genocide Accountability and Sanctions Act of 2025, introduced a month ago to both the Senate and the House, seeks to expand sanctions of the existing law, the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020, regarding the human rights abuses in the predominantly Muslim Uyghur Xinjiang region.

“Each addresses forced organ harvesting in distinct ways, and swift passage is critical to avoid U.S. complicity in these crimes,” ETAC stated. “The international community cannot afford selective silence when fundamental human rights are at stake.”

Authored by William Brooks via The Epoch Times,

Late last December, Canadian businessman Kevin O’Leary, affectionately known as Mr. Wonderful, re-opened a longstanding public debate over the idea of “continentalism” in North America.

Within weeks after the re-election of President Donald Trump, O’Leary pitched the merits of an EU-style economic union between Canada and USA.

“I like this idea and at least half of Canadians are interested” he said.

Unfortunate Timing

As it happened, the timing of O’Leary’s proposal could not have been worse.

The credibility of his idea was instantly undermined by the incoming U.S. President’s controversial insistence that Canada should become the 51st state.

After Trump’s inauguration, Washington pivoted to hardball positions on tariffs and trade and it was clear there would be no special concessions for Canada. Signals from D.C. warned of tough USMCA trade negotiations to come.

In March, a beleaguered Justin Trudeau left office and former Bank of England President Mark Carney took over the Liberal Party of Canada. In April, Mr. Carney was elected prime minister, but his party fell short of winning a clear majority in the House of Commons.

The new Liberal government immediately adopted an “elbows up” disposition in the brewing trade war with the USA. By the summer of 2025, any talk of a Can-Am economic union was crowded out by strong feelings of resentment and ill will on both sides of the border.

An Idea Worth Revisiting

The idea of an EU-style Can-Am union has a long and respectable history and it is well worth revisiting.

After the British North America Act of 1867, Canadian scholar Goldwin Smith led a vigorous philosophical movement that supported closer ties with the USA in the form of a continental economic order. Smith defended the concept in a 1891 book titled “Canada and the Canadian Question.” Opposing movements favoured closer ties with the British Empire or total Canadian economic independence. Neither of the latter positions stood the test of time.

Today, the arguments for the development of a Can-Am union are more compelling than ever. Economic integration, the elimination of trade barriers, and the removal of regulatory mismatches could boost cross-border investment well beyond current USMCA levels. A strong shared currency would eliminate exchange rate volatility, reduce transaction costs, and improve price transparency. EU-style citizen mobility could reduce labour shortages, provide enormous opportunities for young workers, increase productivity, and fill demographic gaps created by aging populations.

Infrastructure and environmental coordination would support integrated transportation systems, energy production, and transnational communications networks. Coordinated pollution policies could establish reasonable emissions standards and enhance environmental protection without obstructing sorely needed drilling, mining, and manufacturing initiatives.

A larger unified market with consistent rules would incentivize investors. Harmonized policies would secure critical materials and technologies within North America and reduce dependency on hostile suppliers. A Can-Am union would bring together a population of some 388.8 million on 19.82 million square kilometres of territory with and a combined GDP of close to $32 trillion.

In the realm of education, mutual credential recognition, research collaboration, and professional mobility would multiply opportunities in a North American cultural market that could stand up to the Chinese Communist Party and other global influencers.

All in all, a new continental order would increase the geopolitical influence and security of citizens in both Canada and the USA. A unified bloc dedicated to Western democratic principles and free enterprise could rival the economic, diplomatic, and military weight of China, Russia, and other totalitarian regimes.

With a southern border wall already in place, our security could be further improved by a joint force that could act against illegal migration and drug smuggling at the water’s edge. Shared intelligence, cybersecurity, and a coordinated military would bolster North America’s defence systems in what has become a dangerous multipolar world.

Modelled after EU governance mechanisms, a North American commission or council could allow for cooperative decision-making without sacrificing national sovereignty. If historical adversaries like Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal can coexist in an economic union, why not Canada and the United States?

Resistance to Change May be Overcome by Facts on the Ground

As it was in the days of Goldwin Smith, there is still plenty of cross-border resistance to Mr. O’Leary’s continentalist proposal.

All manner of entrenched interests regard an economic union as overreach and fear the loss of personal power and control. Big Labour warns of downward pressure on salaries and benefits in an open job market. Canadian politicians fear being overwhelmed in an unbalanced partnership, and American lawmakers are reluctant to support anything that might dilute congressional supremacy.

But facts on the ground are leading to a kinder disposition toward the continental alternative. Among young, ambitious North Americans trapped in a collapsing middle-class there is a powerful yen for greater mobility and the new opportunities that bold change can invoke.

This is especially true on the Canadian side of the border. In 2024 alone, approximately 106,000 Canadians permanently left the country. This figure marked one of the highest outflows in recent memory. Some of the most commonly cited reasons for leaving are the soaring cost of living, low salaries, high taxes, limited career opportunities, and loss of confidence in government institutions. In spite of the anti-American rhetoric constantly served up by Canada’s legacy media, the United States remains the primary destination for departing Canadians. Over a million now live there.

So perhaps it’s time for a second look at Kevin O’Leary’s proposal. As the late British Prime Minister Harold Wilson once asserted: “He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery.”

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.