Donald Trump plans to appeal a court order that allows companies to seek refunds for tariffs that were recently struck down by the US Supreme Court. The ruling said Trump did not have the authority to impose higher import taxes on goods from many countries.
Since the decision, businesses across the United States have started receiving refunds through US Customs and Border Protection. Officials said refund claims have already reached tens of billions of dollars, with some payments already sent to companies that applied early.
The Trump administration argues that refunds should apply only to businesses that filed lawsuits, not to all importers. Government lawyers also warned that processing refunds for every company could take time and may require major system updates. Critics say the appeal could delay payments for months.
Some companies say the refunds will help lower prices or stabilize their businesses after dealing with higher import costs. Retailers and shipping firms have also promised to pass refunds back to customers where possible. Still, uncertainty remains as the legal fight continues.
For weeks, the latest Ebola outbreak was framed as a regional emergency. That assumption is now being challenged by mounting evidence that the outbreak may be broader, more fragmented and entrenched than initially believed.
On Saturday, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus visited eastern Congo’s Bunia, a city at the heart of the Ebola outbreak, where the virus is spreading faster than the response.
In some affected regions, public trust in government and foreign health interventions is extremely weak.
The crisis is centered in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), with spillovers into Uganda and rising concern across neighboring states. Official numbers remain uncertain because surveillance systems in conflict zones are incomplete.
The outbreak circulated undetected for weeks, perhaps longer, before full recognition. By the time authorities moved aggressively, transmission chains may have spread across borders, refugee corridors and informal trade networks.
Why this Ebola crisis is different
The danger does not lie primarily in the current number of cases, which remain far below the scale of COVID-19 or even the West African Ebola outbreak of 2014-16.
Historically, Ebola outbreaks have remained geographically concentrated. Although the virus is highly lethal, it is relatively difficult to transmit compared with airborne respiratory diseases.
But the present crisis is unfolding under unusually adverse conditions: war, displacement, urbanization, weak public-health systems, declining international aid capacity and growing mistrust of authorities. “Never before has an Ebola outbreak recorded so many cases so soon after its declaration,” the medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières has warned.
Eastern Congo is one of the most difficult environments in the world for epidemic control. Armed militias, population displacement and attacks on medical facilities undermine contact tracing and isolation efforts. Informal border crossings are extensive. Urban growth has accelerated faster than health infrastructure. In some affected regions, public trust in government and foreign health interventions is extremely weak.
Moreover, the current outbreak involves the Bundibugyo strain of Ebola, for which no fully established licensed vaccine exists comparable to those deployed against the Zaire strain during previous outbreaks. That sharply complicates containment.
Potential contagion links
One of the least understood aspects of the present outbreak concerns contagion linkages beyond immediate epidemiology. Let’s start with physical contagion networks: Eastern Africa’s transport corridors increasingly connect local outbreaks to regional and global mobility systems.
Cities like Kampala, Kigali and Nairobi are no longer isolated peripheral centers. They are integrated into international aviation and trade flows linking Africa to the Gulf, Europe and Asia.
Second, institutional contagion effects: Fragile health systems already weakened by debt burdens, inflation and post-pandemic exhaustion are struggling to absorb another major shock, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.
Third, psychological and economic contagion: Financial markets, tourism flows, commodity exports and investment patterns can react violently even to limited outbreaks if fears of wider transmission intensify. The 2014-16 Ebola crisis demonstrated how panic itself can generate severe economic damage independent of the actual epidemiological scale.
Finally, geopolitical contagion: In a fragmented multipolar world, global health crises increasingly intersect with strategic competition, sanctions, debt restructuring and security concerns. Epidemics no longer operate outside geopolitics; they amplify it.
Sources: WHO, Africa CDC, Reuters, UNICEF, OCHA, IOM (May 29, 2026)
The impact of US aid withdrawal
One of the most consequential dimensions of the current Ebola crisis concerns the partial retreat of US and Western international health support over recent years.
American funding cuts and shifting priorities have weakened several pillars of global epidemic preparedness, including surveillance systems, laboratory support, emergency logistics and NGO operations across vulnerable regions. The abrupt manner these cuts have been executed has compounded the negative effects.
The broad erosion of development assistance after COVID-era fiscal strains aggravates the problem. In practice, this means slower outbreak detection, weaker field operations and reduced healthcare resilience precisely where early intervention matters most.
The retreat of preventative international health capacity is likely to ultimately increase the probability of far costlier future global emergencies.
In the case of Ebola, the Trump administration is contributing to amplified risks. Though most countries are following the WHO’s advice on travel bans, the U.S. is ignoring it.
Contagion scenarios
The first and most likely plausible scenario is a severe but regionally contained epidemic. The outbreak could produce thousands or even tens of thousands of cases regionally, while devastating local economies and healthcare systems.
In this case, intensified international response efforts eventually stabilize transmission through traditional Ebola control measures: isolation, tracing, border monitoring and behavioral adaptation. For now, this is regarded as the likeliest scenario.
The second scenario involves a wider multinational African epidemic. This becomes plausible if transmission becomes embedded along mobility corridors linking Congo, Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, Tanzania and beyond. Refugee flows, mining routes and informal commerce networks could facilitate wider regional spread.
In this case, Ebola would remain primarily an African crisis, but one with major global economic, humanitarian and geopolitical repercussions.
The third scenario — a true global pandemic transition — remains relatively unlikely but can no longer be dismissed entirely. Sustained international spread would likely require repeated exportation into major cities combined with failures in hospital containment and perhaps viral adaptation toward easier transmission.
There is currently no evidence of such adaptation. Nevertheless, prolonged uncontrolled transmission increases evolutionary opportunities and magnifies systemic risk.
From regional emergency to global test
The present Ebola crisis has not become a global pandemic threat comparable to COVID-19. Public health officials hope it will remain regionally concentrated despite severe humanitarian consequences.
The failure to contain the Ebola crisis in its early local stage suggests that the lessons of Covid-19 pandemic have not been learned. It heralds still another tragedy of missed opportunities.
Once they reach major urban systems and international mobility corridors, costs rise exponentially.
However, the world today is less institutionally cohesive, less politically cooperative and less strategically prepared for transnational crises than it was just a decade ago. Pandemic fatigue, geopolitical rivalry and fiscal retrenchment have weakened precisely the mechanisms needed for early containment.
Infectious disease containment operates according to a simple principle: outbreaks are cheapest to stop at the periphery. Once they reach major urban systems and international mobility corridors, costs rise exponentially.
It is a principle that international community can ignore only at its own peril.
Dr. Dan Steinbockis an internationally recognized strategist of the multipolar world and the founder of Difference Group. He has served at the India, China and America Institute (USA), Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net
Financial firms heavily invest in events, but without visual ownership, most value is lost. Leaving fragmented content, weak brand recognition, and missed opportunities to build trust.
Events have become a core feature of the financial services calendar. Investor summits, client dinners, and fintech conferences are multiplying, with heavily allocated budgets. And yet, for all this investment, very little of what’s created in those rooms at those events actually delivers long-term brand value. So, what ROI do they create? The reason it’s so hard to answer that question is that nobody owns what comes out of them.
The open accountability gap
Events should deliver connections, contracts, and content. The first two partly come down to what happens on the day, but they’re also intrinsically linked to the third, specifically, the visual output. Visual content directly influences how a brand is perceived. The problem is that in most financial institutions, visual output is both everywhere and owned by no one.
Of course, there are guidelines, but with event content typically being ad hoc, impromptu, and minimal, those guidelines are rarely enforced. Marketing teams produce campaigns focused on promoting the event, rather than maximising its potential. Communications teams are really only about messaging. Events teams focus, understandably, on logistics and experience. And sales teams create their own materials to meet their immediate needs. There’s no cohesive oversight and no branding ownership. In our work covering corporate events for global financial brands, it’s not unusual to find four or five different production vendors hired across territories for a single summit series, each interpreting the brief differently, and none of them owning what the body of work looks like once it’s stitched together. The result is fragmentation, which not only reduces the ROI of events but can erode a brand’s visual identity, and with it, consumer familiarity, recognition, and trust. The brand is seen, but not remembered.
Compliance is a constraint, not an explanation
Ask why financial services marketing looks the way it does, and most people will point to compliance. Strict regulations, risk aversion, and approval layers are all genuine constraints. In finance, organisations have to be careful about what they do and say. But that doesn’t mean visual creativity is off the table. The actual reason most financial firms default to stock photography and tick-the-box headshots, rather than treating either as a real brand asset, is that it’s easier. But that ease comes at the cost of differentiation.
Financial services websites and social pages blur into one. They use the same colour palettes, abstract graphics, and interchangeable imagery of people in suits. The intention is to portray professionalism. But the result is typically bland anonymity. At a glance, nothing distinguishes one firm from its competitors. Events can be the route to something better.
How events can deliver more than a single hit
Finance is one of the most acutely personal concerns. And yet, financial institutions almost inevitably manage to feel impersonal. Events are one of the few moments when that can change. Human contact is available. Leaders become approachable. Conversations become more natural. There are scripts, but only in the right places. And clients can engage in real time, experiencing company culture in its truest form but only for the people in the room.
That can change with a clear visual strategy. Moving away from ad hoc sound bites and keynote video capture, and towards curated but natural content – executive interviews, client perspectives, candid team interactions, behind-the-scenes moments – that can fill newsletters and social pages for months. The kind of shot list that should be agreed before the venue is booked, not improvised in the hallway.Not staged, not generic, but authentic and credible. That takes intent and ownership.
Why ownership matters
When there is clear ownership of visual strategy, visual identity becomes an asset. Content stops being opportunistic and is instead integrated into event strategy from the outset. While the venue is being booked and the agenda finalised, the focus shifts to defining what to capture, how it will be used, and how it can further brand objectives. A pre-production brief, written, signed off, and put in the hands of every photographer and videographer on the day, converts ‘we’ll see what we get’ into something a marketing team can plan around.
Clear guidelines, properly enforced, don’t just produce better looking content, they reinforce the brand narrative, building client trust and familiarity over time. That requires accountability: someone taking charge and ensuring those goals are met.
The missing link
Ownership is one of the main reasons events are underutilised. But inconsistency also plays a part. Even when companies understand that content can be invaluable, understanding how to access it isn’t always simple, especially for businesses working in multiple territories. The lack of ownership means that most large financial institutions rarely work with a single creative partner across markets. Each city gets its own producer, each producer brings its own interpretation of the brand, and the cumulative effect is a visual identity that drifts a little further out of focus with every event.
As standalone events, the content produced might be passable, good, even. But when brought together, all that’s managed is a sense that cohesion is missing from the brand. Strong central direction and oversight help. A core creative partner, fully informed of the company’s intent and accountable for output across every market, is what turns a fragmented set of event coverage decisions into a consistent brand asset
The financial services sector understands that events carry value. It just doesn’t know how to unlock it. The industry is investing heavily in creating scenarios that make it feel more human, credible, and differentiated. But it’s forgetting that its biggest battles in that arena happen outside of the event rooms. Continuing to pursue and invest in events without first creating a strong visual content strategy and assigning ownership of it means that all of those carefully curated moments are quickly forgotten. And that’s a waste that no organization can really afford.
Serge Bejjaniis the co-founder and CEO of Shootday, a global photo and video production company operating across 150+ cities worldwide. He leads the company’s operations, sales, and client experience, building the infrastructure that enables brands to produce consistent visual content across distributed teams and international markets. His work focuses on scaling creative production through technology, global talent networks, and streamlined production systems.
When property damage occurs from fires, storms or flooding, many policyholders assume the insurance claims process will be straightforward. However, it often involves multiple parties with very different roles. One key consideration is choosing between a public adjuster vs insurance adjuster. While both assess damage and help determine claim value, they represent opposing interests, which can significantly affect the final settlement.
Who Each Adjuster Represents
The main difference between a public adjuster and an insurance adjuster is who they ultimately work for. An insurance company adjuster is employed by the insurance carrier, and their responsibility is to investigate the claim, assess the extent of the damage and determine how much the insurance company should pay based on the policy terms. Even when acting professionally and ethically, their role is aligned with protecting the insurer’s financial interests.
On the other hand, a public adjuster works directly for the policyholder. Their job is to advocate for the insured party, interpret policy language, evaluate damages and negotiate with the insurer to pursue a fair settlement. This creates an inherent difference in priorities. One reputable public insurance adjusting company, Performance Adjusting, states, “Public Adjusters handle the communication and negotiation with insurance companies to maximize your settlement.”
How Compensation Shapes Incentives
Another important difference lies in how each type of adjuster is paid. Insurance company adjusters are typically salaried employees or contracted professionals paid by the insurer, with their compensation not tied to the size of an individual settlement.
In contrast, public adjusters usually work on a fee basis, meaning they receive a percentage of the final insurance settlement. As such, they are only paid when the policyholder is paid, and their incentive is aligned with maximizing the claim outcome.
Public adjusters may charge a fee of up to 10% of the total recovered loss, which is the regulated standard for most public adjusters. This payment method creates a win-win scenario where both the policyholder and the public adjuster benefit from maximized claims.
How They Differ in the Inspection Process
The average homeowners insurance premium has increased by 3% nationwide and by over 25% in high-risk areas. Accurate, fair damage insurance adjuster inspection is therefore critical for policyholders, as it determines damage documentation and initial estimates. The inspection approach, however, varies between adjuster types.
Insurance company adjusters, often managing large caseloads after disasters, may conduct brief inspections and document only visible damage, overlooking hidden or secondary issues. In contrast, public adjusters like Performance Adjusting perform independent, thorough inspections that identify both visible and concealed problems, such as structural damage or moisture intrusion.
How They Differ in Estimate Preparation and Valuation
Both adjuster types prepare estimates, but their approaches vary. Insurance company adjusters typically use internal pricing software and guidelines to control costs. While these tools are standard in the industry, they can sometimes yield estimates that underrepresent the true cost of repairs when local labor rates, material prices or code requirements aren’t fully accounted for.
In contrast, public adjusters prioritize thorough documentation of all losses, including repairs, temporary relocation, business interruption, debris removal and required code upgrades, with their focus on completeness resulting in more detailed claims.
This attention is crucial when disasters cause extensive damage. For example, severe storms resulted in insured losses exceeding $50 billion in 2025. This is why it’s vital to partner with a professional public adjuster, like Performance Adjusting, to help ensure that no aspect of the loss is overlooked and that the claims process is managed to maximize recovery.
How They Differ in Tactics and Claim Outcomes
Policyholders can encounter different strategies during the claims process that can affect the final settlement amount. While not inherently unfair, some insurance adjuster tactics can influence how claims are evaluated. These may include early settlement offers before the full extent of damage is known.
Public adjusters like Performance Adjusting help balance this dynamic by interpreting policy terms, organizing evidence and negotiating directly with the insurer. Their role is particularly important when claims become complex or disputed, as they are experienced in identifying discrepancies between insurer estimates and actual repair needs.
Settlement Differences
The differences in approach between public adjusters and insurance company adjusters often become most visible in the final settlement amount. Insurance company adjusters are responsible for controlling claim costs on behalf of the insurer, which naturally creates an incentive to keep payouts within a certain range. Even when claims are valid, this structure can lead to conservative valuations. According to Performance Adjusting, “People don’t understand how much they could get for damages, so they lose thousands of dollars in the process.”
On the other hand, public adjusters advocate solely for the policyholder and work to ensure all covered damages are included in the claim, helping homeowners navigate the claims process and obtain the maximum claim for damaged property.
Why Partner with Performance Adjusting
Performance Adjusting is a public insurance adjuster representing homeowners and businesses after property damage from storms, fires or other incidents, and their team-based approach includes specialists in adjusting, loss consulting, customer service and claim processing. While they cannot assist if a claim is fully denied, they can help increase payouts on ongoing or partially settled claims within the applicable period.
Making an Informed Choice
Choosing between an insurance company adjuster and a public adjuster can significantly impact the outcome of a property insurance claim. Insurance company adjusters represent the insurer and focus on managing claim costs, while public adjusters represent the policyholder and work to ensure the claim reflects the full extent of the loss.
Understanding the distinction is essential before accepting a settlement. Consulting a public adjuster can help clarify the claim’s true value and whether the insurer’s offer fully covers the damage.
Money worries have a way of creeping into everyday life and causing financial stress. Checking balances. Opening statements. Even second-guessing when you go grocery shopping. All these things can start to make you feel the pressure of money.
However, when you shift your focus from what went wrong to what you can do next, you start to restore a sense of direction – and that’s where meaningful progress begins.
Accepting the Setback and Resetting Your Financial Mindset
People fall into debt or miss payments for all kinds of reasons—rising living costs, illness, or simply not having the right financial tools at the time. What matters now is how you respond.
When you take an honest look at your situation, you gain clarity. For example, if high-interest borrowing played a role, you may now recognize that credit cards with variable rates require careful comparison before use. Bad credit loans can be a great option for when you’re in a difficult financial situation, but make sure you’re researching your options fully and have full control over your decision.
Creating a Practical Budget You Can Actually Stick To
Start by tracking what you spend over a typical month, including takeouts on busy evenings and small subscriptions you rarely use. When you see these trends, you can adjust them in a way that feels doable.
Give every dollar a purpose, whether it goes toward bills, savings, or discretionary spending. This approach makes you feel more intentional with your money. Over time, even small shifts, like redirecting $40 a week into an emergency fund, build a buffer that reduces stress when unexpected costs appear.
Rebuilding Credit and Improving Financial Habits
Improving your credit score doesn’t happen overnight, but consistent behavior can make a visible difference within months. Lenders look for reliability, so you strengthen your profile every time you make a payment on time or reduce your balance.
If you carry debt, focus on gradually lowering what you owe rather than trying to clear everything in one go. For example, paying an extra $25 toward a credit card balance each month not only reduces interest but also signals responsible use. You might also consider keeping older accounts open to maintain a longer credit history, as long as they don’t carry fees.
Set up reminders or automatic payments to avoid missed due dates.
Knowing When to Ask for Help and Use Financial Support Services
You don’t have to figure everything out alone. Many people feel hesitant to seek help, but financial guidance can save you time, stress, and even money in the long run.
Nonprofit credit counseling services, for example, can help you create a debt repayment plan or negotiate with creditors. If you speak to your bank early, you might find options like payment holidays or revised terms before a situation escalates. These conversations often feel uncomfortable at first, but they can open the door to practical solutions you might not have considered.
The World Health Organization has warned that ongoing fighting in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo is severely disrupting efforts to contain an Ebola outbreak, creating what it called a “catastrophic collision” of disease and conflict.
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said health teams cannot build trust or isolate patients while violence continues in Ituri province, where most cases have been reported. He urged an immediate ceasefire to allow humanitarian workers safe access.
Authorities say the outbreak has led to around 220 suspected deaths, with only a small number confirmed through laboratory tests. Aid organizations, including Médecins Sans Frontières, say they are facing serious difficulties responding because of insecurity in affected areas, poor road access, and large-scale displacement that is pushing already vulnerable people into overcrowded camps.
As concerns grow about the risk of cross-border spread, several countries including Uganda, Canada, the Bahamas, and the United States have introduced travel restrictions. Health officials are racing to trace thousands of contacts as quickly as possible, while also warning that this outbreak is caused by a rare strain of Ebola for which there is currently no approved vaccine or treatment.
Holidays offer a chance to spend unhurried, quality time with your parents. Beyond the usual conversations, they also give you a chance to quietly notice how they are managing their daily life, including any changes in routine, health, or comfort.
These moments can give you a clearer sense of whether everything is on track or if something may need a closer look.
Check If There are Any Changes in Their Daily Routine?
Start by observing how their day usually unfolds, like:
Are meals being skipped or eaten at irregular times?
Has their sleep pattern changed recently?
Do everyday tasks seem to take more time than before?
These shifts may seem minor, but they can point to something that needs to be looked into.
How is Their Physical Health and Mobility?
Notice how comfortably your parents move around, like walking, standing up, or using the stairs. This can give you a sense of how they are feeling physically.
Pay attention if they seem uneasy while walking, require more effort to stand up, or hesitate before certain movements. Any changes in balance or strength can affect how easily they handle daily activities.
Is Their Living Environment Safe and Comfortable?
The condition of the home can give you useful clues about how things are being managed. A space that feels organised and easy to move around in usually reflects comfort and control over daily tasks.
Look out for:
Clutter that could lead to trips or falls
Poor lighting, especially in walkways
Items placed in hard-to-reach areas
Are They Managing Medicines and Appointments Well?
Managing medicines and doctor visits is an important part of staying healthy. During your visit, try to understand if this routine is being followed properly. Check:
Are medicines being taken regularly?
Are prescriptions current?
Are follow-up visits happening as advised?
If anything seems off track, it may need attention.
How is Their Emotional Well-Being?
Spending time together can also give you a sense of their emotional state. Sometimes, changes here are easy to miss over phone calls.
Notice if they seem less interested in conversations, low on energy, or not as engaged in things they usually enjoy. These signs can indicate that they may need more interaction or support.
Do They Have Adequate Financial and Medical Support?
It is crucial to understand how prepared they are for medical needs. As health requirements change with age, having the right support in place becomes important.
When you look at the best health insurance, it helps to understand what kind of situations are covered. Some policies may include hospitalisation and related expenses, depending on the terms.
Have You Reviewed Their Insurance Coverage Recently?
Check if their current coverage still fits their needs, as health conditions and requirements can change over time.
When considering health insurance for parents, look at what the policy includes and whether it aligns with their present situation. Coverage, limits, and conditions can differ across policies.
Conclusion
A holiday visit can offer more than just spending time together. It gives you a chance to see how your parents are managing their daily life, from their health and mobility to their surroundings. Noticing small details during this time can help you understand if any changes are needed and support them in a way that fits their needs.
Online psychic services are encountering heightened regulatory scrutiny as this sector expands internationally. Differences in legal frameworks, consumer protections, and data security requirements add complexity for providers and users. Financial and reputational risks can increase as digital psychic platforms work to maintain compliance across multiple jurisdictions.
The online psychic sector has evolved rapidly, driven by demand for remote advice and convenient access to entertainment services. Online psychics are subject to legal requirements that often differ by country and region. For both providers and users, these rules affect everything from service classification to the types of claims that can be made in public communications.
Legal definitions and their role in compliance
One significant challenge for online psychic services is legal classification, which shapes the obligations platforms must meet. Some jurisdictions treat digital psychic offerings as entertainment, while others define them as spiritual advice or consumer services.
This distinction impacts requirements for licensing, consumer disclosures, and what marketing claims may be permitted. Platforms operating in multiple legal environments must tailor policies and documentation for each jurisdiction. Not doing so can result in disputes or penalties.
Advertising, disclosure, and consumer risk protection
Operators are expected to prevent misleading advertising and manage users’ expectations regarding possible outcomes. Regulators may review whether guarantee language or implied promises could be considered exploitative to vulnerable users.
Transparency around pricing and billing practices is under regulatory scrutiny to reduce disputes and chargebacks. Standards for clear communication, such as those affecting Online Psychics, as well as effective complaint and refund management, are crucial to regulatory compliance for these platforms.
Managing privacy, payments, and operational responsibility
Online psychic services frequently process sensitive personal data through chat, voice, and video interactions. Regulations concerning cross-border data transfers, user consent, and secure data storage differ significantly, making ongoing compliance complex.
Payments also present challenges, with the sector sometimes classified as high risk for chargebacks. Know-your-customer (KYC) procedures, anti-fraud measures, and accurate record-keeping are important operational components, as regulators may require evidence that platforms address financial risks and abuse.
Governance practices and business outlook for providers
Provider vetting, complaint resolution, and effective platform moderation underpin compliance for digital psychic firms. Maintaining proper records and offering audit trails supports dispute resolution and regulatory examinations.
As the sector matures, both compliance costs and barriers to entry may increase; however, strong governance practices can reduce reputational risk. Sound operational procedures are expected to become more critical as regulatory pressures grow in the digital services industry.
The new office divide is no longer remote versus in person or manager versus individual contributor. It is between people who treat AI as part of the job and people who still think it is optional. A recent WRITER and Workplace Intelligence survey captured the mood with unusual bluntness: many employers now say workers who resist AI risk stalled advancement or worse. Out of 2,400 employees and C-suite leaders, 60% of companies say they plan to lay off employees who will not adopt AI, 77% of executives say AI resisters will be passed over for promotions, and 92% say they are actively cultivating an “AI elite” class of workers. Even more telling, 87% of executives say those employees are at least five times more productive than their peers.
AI is being recast as the new minimum standard for relevance. That sounds harsh because it is. But it also reflects a deeper shift. AI is moving from novelty to baseline, and careers are being repriced around that reality.
The New Baseline
AI is spreading through work as a mix of augmentation and automation, not as a clean handoff from person to machine.
This is not happening because every company has cracked the code. Far from it. The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 says 39% of core job skills are expected to change by 2030, with technological change as the biggest driver. At the same time, McKinsey’s workplace AI research found that almost all companies are investing in AI while only 1% describe themselves as mature in how they use it.
That gap matters. Employers are demanding AI fluency before they have built stable systems, clear norms, or convincing workflows. So “use AI” becomes a vague command that often means “be faster, cheaper, and more adaptable.” Yet genuine AI fluency is not prompt theater. It is knowing when to automate, when to verify, when to keep humans in the loop, and when sensitive data should never touch a model in the first place. The Anthropic Economic Index points to the real pattern: AI is spreading through work as a mix of augmentation and automation, not as a clean handoff from person to machine.
The Productivity Premium Is Real but Uneven
There is a reason executives sound impatient. In a widely cited National Bureau of Economic Research paper on generative AI in customer support, access to an AI assistant raised productivity by 14% on average and delivered even larger gains for less experienced workers. Those numbers are catnip for leadership teams under pressure to grow without hiring.
But that same evidence should make companies more careful, not more reckless. AI produces gains where tasks are structured, feedback is quick, and performance is measurable. It does not magically fix bad management, muddled processes, or poor judgment. A recent Harvard Business Review analysis of AI-linked layoffs argues that many firms are cutting staff based on anticipated value rather than proven results. In other words, some companies are reorganizing around a promise they have not yet earned.
That is how an “AI elite” narrative turns corrosive. Workers get the message that they must use AI, but not the training, guardrails, or incentives to use it well. The result is speed without discipline: sloppy outputs, hidden errors, and shadow adoption that quietly expands risk.
The Smart Employers Are Redesigning Work
The more serious organizations are choosing a harder path. KPMG has offered cash rewards for employee AI innovation, signaling that experimentation should create enterprise value, not just personal efficiency. And Marriott’s technology leadership has emphasized a limited set of high-value AI use cases instead of spraying tools across the company and hoping culture catches up.
They will win by creating workplaces where human judgment gets more valuable as machine output gets cheaper.
That is the better model. Train people in AI adoption. Pick workflows that matter. Measure outcomes that executives actually care about. Build governance before a security incident builds it for you. Most of all, stop pretending that adoption is the same thing as transformation. It is not.
The employee most at risk now is not necessarily the one who has never touched an AI tool. It is the one who believes the old definition of competence will survive unchanged. But leaders should be careful too. Companies will not win by turning AI into a fear test. They will win by creating workplaces where human judgment gets more valuable as machine output gets cheaper. That is the real career insurance in the AI era, and the real competitive advantage.
Image Credit: Alex Konanykhin, Founder and CEO of SafeBets.world
How Foresight Collective is turning crowd-sourced market intelligence into a global earning opportunity — and why prediction markets like Polymarket and Kalshi may be on the wrong side of the trade
There is a peculiar fact about the financial markets that has held true for decades: the people who reliably make money in them are concentrated in a handful of expensive postal codes. Hedge funds in Greenwich and Mayfair. Trading desks in lower Manhattan and Canary Wharf. Quantitative shops in Chicago, Singapore, and Hong Kong. The capacity to read markets accurately is treated as a scarce and credentialed skill, available only to those who can be hired into firms that pay seven-figure salaries to find them.
Foresight Collective, Inc., a New York-based company that launched its SafeBets platform on April 23, 2026, is built on a contrarian thesis: the talent is not scarce. The infrastructure to find it and deploy it productively has simply not existed before.
A different kind of prediction platform
The platform looks superficially similar to prediction markets like Polymarket and Kalshi, which have collectively attracted billions of dollars in trading volume by allowing users to bet on the outcomes of real-world events. The user experience involves opening an account, depositing money, and placing wagers on which outcomes will occur.
That model is now under sustained regulatory pressure. In May 2026, Minnesota became the first state to criminalize the operation of prediction markets, making it a felony to run such a platform within its borders. The federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission immediately sued to block the law, but the political signal was unmistakable. The reason is that prediction markets, by the legal definition every U.S. state uses, are gambling: users place wagers on uncertain outcomes, and most lose money over time.
The SafeBets platform is built around a single architectural decision that distinguishes it categorically from these competitors: users place no wager. No deposit. No stake. No capital at risk of loss. Participants make predictions on cryptocurrency prices, commodity movements, equities, foreign exchange, and other tradable markets, but their own money never moves. The Minnesota statute, which defines a prediction market as “any system that allows consumers to place a wager,” does not reach SafeBets. The same is true of essentially every state gambling law on the books.
The economic model is what makes the structure work. SafeBets does not generate revenue from user losses, because there are no user losses. Instead, the platform aggregates the predictions of its top performers into a real-time intelligence signal, which Foresight Collective’s affiliated trading entities deploy into actual financial markets — crypto exchanges, commodity futures, equity indices, FX pairs. The trading profits become the source of prize pools awarded to the most accurate forecasters.
In effect, Foresight Collective is operating a hedge fund whose research desk consists of thousands of independent forecasters, each compensated for being right.
The model prediction markets cannot replicate
A prediction market makes money in two ways: by taking a fee on each transaction, or by holding the float and benefiting from users who lose money to those who win. In either case, the underlying value created is the betting activity itself. The prediction data is a byproduct, not the product.
Foresight Collective inverts this. The predictions are the product. The platform exists to identify accurate forecasters, aggregate their intelligence, and deploy it into markets where being right has direct monetary value. The user experience is a contest for skilled participants, not a casino for speculative bettors. The economic engine is trading returns generated against external counterparties, not transaction fees extracted from a closed user base.
A platform whose business model depends on users losing money to other users has a structural limit: it can only grow as fast as it can attract new losing participants. A platform whose business model depends on aggregating skilled predictions has a different scaling curve entirely. More participants mean more signal. Better signal means better trading returns. Better returns mean larger prize pools. Larger prize pools attract more skilled participants. The flywheel runs on accuracy, not on churn.
A new earning opportunity for a global pool of analysts
The most consequential implication of the model is not its competitive position against existing prediction markets. It is the opportunity it creates for a class of workers who have never before had direct access to financial markets as a source of income: skilled forecasters located anywhere in the world, including in regions where local economies offer few professional opportunities.
To be paid for understanding markets today, you generally need to be hired by a financial firm, which generally means living in or near one of perhaps a dozen global financial centers. The university degree, the regulatory licensing, the personal network, the visa status, the rent in Manhattan or London — every step of the pipeline is structured around physical and credential gatekeeping that excludes the vast majority of people who might be genuinely skilled at the work.
The SafeBets platform removes this gatekeeping entirely. To participate, a forecaster needs an internet connection and a track record of accuracy. The platform ranks participants by their actual predictive performance over time, not by their resume or location. A 25-year-old in Lagos with insight into African commodity markets can build a verifiable track record. A retired analyst in Manila with three decades of regional currency experience can compete on equal terms with a Stanford MBA in Palo Alto. The platform pays the same dollar amount for the same accuracy regardless of where the forecaster lives.
The Uber and Airbnb parallel
The closest analogies for the economic dislocation this could produce are Uber and Airbnb, both of which created earning opportunities for people whose previous options were considerably narrower.
Before Uber, a person who owned a car and had time to drive had no straightforward way to convert that into income. Uber’s contribution was not the car or the driving — both already existed — but the infrastructure that connected supply to demand at scale. Today, millions earn meaningful income through Uber and similar platforms worldwide, with the highest impact concentrated in markets where alternative employment is scarce.
Before Airbnb, a person who owned a spare room had no marketplace to monetize it. Airbnb’s contribution was the infrastructure that turned latent housing capacity into income, with particular impact in regions where tourism is the primary economic activity.
The Foresight Collective model points toward the same kind of unlock, applied to financial analysis. The latent supply — skilled forecasters whose insights have never had a marketplace — already exists. What has been missing is the infrastructure to identify them, verify their accuracy, and pay them for being right.
A forecaster in Vietnam may have insights into regional supply chains that no Manhattan analyst can match. A forecaster in Nigeria may understand local energy markets in ways that no London commodities desk could replicate. A forecaster in Argentina may have lived experience of currency instability that no Chicago quant could acquire from data alone. The platform’s structure rewards exactly this kind of distributed, local expertise — and pays for it in real money.
What this could become
The history of internet platforms suggests the most consequential ones are not necessarily those that look most disruptive at launch. Uber initially looked like a slightly better taxi app. Airbnb initially looked like a slightly better classified ad. The transformative effect — the creation of entirely new categories of work — became apparent only as the platforms matured and network effects compounded.
The SafeBets platform launched on April 23 with similar surface modesty. But the underlying architecture — separation of forecaster compensation from user wagering, monetization through external market trading rather than internal user losses, global open access without credential gatekeeping — points toward something more substantial: the early infrastructure of a decentralized industry of market analysts, distributed across the world, compensated directly for the value of their insights.
The capacity to read markets — historically one of the most credentialed and geographically concentrated skills in the modern economy — would become accessible as a source of income to anyone with internet access and the discipline to develop genuine accuracy over time. The prediction markets that came before it monetizes losers. The platform Foresight Collective is building monetizes accuracy — and pays for it globally.
The photo in the article is provided by the company(s) mentioned in the article and used with permission.
By Terence Tse
CFOs are evolving into AI-driven transformation orchestrators, balancing finance, technology, and strategy while upskilling teams, managing risks, and driving measurable business value.
A key insight from this year’s AI for CFOs event, organized...
The World Financial Review uses cookies to improve site functionality, provide you with a better browsing experience, and to enable our partners to advertise to you. Detailed information on the use of cookies on this Site, and how you can decline them, is provided in our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions. By clicking on the accept button and using this Site, you consent to our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions. ACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Dr. Dan Steinbock
Serge Bejjani
Dr. Gleb Tsipursky
