Why Canada soccer game vs Panama was cancelled: Explaining players protest in contract dispute months before FIFA World Cup

Kyle Bonn - Sporting News


On the heels of qualification to its first men's World Cup since 1986, this summer was meant to be part celebration and part preparation for Canada in the lead-up to Qatar 2022. The Canadian men are set to play in Group F against Morocco, Belgium, and Croatia.

Instead, recent weeks have left Canadian soccer in a quagmire of controversy, public disagreement, finger pointing, statements and counter statements, and player dissent. That combustible mix led to the cancellation of a senior men's national team match on Canadian soil on the same day it was supposed to be played.

Just a week after seeing its planned June friendly against Iran called off in the wake of significant public and political backlash, the Canadian Soccer Association was forced to cancel its replacement friendly against Panama just hours before kickoff due to a player strike.

With a unique window to transform the sport's profile in Canada, and just four years prior to serving as co-host of the 2026 men's World Cup, Canada Soccer must now find a way to navigate a crisis that if not managed correctly has the potential of leaving permanent scars on the sport and its image.

Canada's men's soccer team cancels a match against Panama amid contract disputes between players and governing body Soccer Canada

This is just days after Soccer Canada had to cancel the game with Iran

Sports journalist @JohnMolinaro explainshttps://t.co/RqwxcOVVJw pic.twitter.com/oB2lDXiXsX— Natasha Fatah (@NatashaFatah) June 6, 2022

MORE: Breaking down Canada's Group F at the 2022 World Cup
Why was Canada vs Panama soccer game cancelled?

Around 5 p.m. ET on June 5, just two hours before kickoff in Vancouver, Canada Soccer officially announced it was cancelling its friendly against Panama.

The match was called off after players announced they would not take the field in protest due to a lack of financial transparency by Canada Soccer. The men's team players released a joint statement to media members, which indicated that they "have reluctantly decided not to play our match today against Panama."

In the statement, the players outlined a host of demands required for them to retake the field, casting serious doubt over upcoming Nations League matches scheduled for June 9 vs. Curacao and June 13 in Honduras.

This is the "Dear Canada" letter released by Canada's national men's team players.

Asking for a review of Canada Soccer's broadcast & sponsorship contracts, 40% of World Cup qualification money, and a joint contract with the women's team with equal compensation for match fees. pic.twitter.com/STazGyJ9MW— Rick Westhead (@rwesthead) June 5, 2022

MORE: Why Canada friendly vs. Iran was called off and replaced with Panama match
Why Canada soccer strike happened

The players are seeking to bring about changes in the way the national team program is run, demanding greater transparency from Canada Soccer.

"Despite the unprecedented success of both the Women's and Men's national teams in 2021/22, we have seen no changes. Where is the progression? Where is the money?" read the statement.

The players characterized the relationship with Canada Soccer as "strained for years". They claimed that the organization "disrespected our team and jeopardized our efforts to raise the standards and effectively advance the game in Canada" by delaying contract discussions and waiting "until the evening of June 2nd to present an archaic offer" when contract discussions had begun in March.

Provided that background, they "reluctantly decided not to play" against Panama, and instead wanted to "take a stand for the future of soccer in Canada." The players proceeded to outline a list of demands they called "fundamental elements we will stand on guard for, to shift soccer in our country":

Transparency and a review of the 10-year media and sponsorship agreement struck in 2019 with an organization called Canadian Soccer Business, owned by Canadian Premier League founders;

A leadership team that can "optimize this moment and generate revenue from corporate sponsorship";

An equitable structure with the women's national team that "shares the same player match fees, percentage of prize money earned at our respective FIFA World Cups, and the development of a women's domestic league;

World Cup compensation that includes 40 percent of prize money;

A comprehensive friends and family package for the 2022 World Cup;

More former players integrated into leadership positions within Canada Soccer.

The players are specifically citing the Canadian Soccer Business deal because they feel it "completely compromised their ability to leverage the on-field success of our senior national teams" and "hand cuffed our association [Canada Soccer]." They went on to demand that the terms of the agreement are "disclosed and corrected".

Context: Canada Soccer signed a 10-yr deal in 2019 with Canadian Soccer Business, an independent company that is owned by Canadian Premier League team owners.

CSB represents CS on all of its media & sponsor deals.

Where does $$ go? Players say they want answers.— Rick Westhead (@rwesthead) June 5, 2022

The Canada women's national team, winners of Olympic gold in 2021, followed up with their own statement indicating they, too, were in negotiations with Canada Soccer since January 2022. They are seeking an agreement "that will provide equal pay to members of our team relation to the Men's National Team."

The women also say they received a proposal from Canada Soccer around the same time as the men did in June. But similar to the men, they have asked for more information "regarding its financials, including with respect to its agreement with Canadian Soccer Business."

But the women's statement also took issue with the way their male counterparts portrayed the idea of an "equitable structure" for compensation: "To be clear, the Women's National Team does not view equal FIFA percentages between our respective teams as equal pay."

It's a similar issue that the U.S. men's and women's teams ultimately resolved by pooling the disparate prize money that FIFA awards men's and women's and sharing that pooled money equally.

A statement from the Canadian Women’s National Team players: pic.twitter.com/JHqkm3iiXr— CanadianSoccerPlayers (@PlayersCanadian) June 6, 2022

Media members pointed out how the investment in the men's and women's programs has not been equitable in the past, citing previous reports of the Canada Soccer association's finances.

This is from Canada Soccer's publicly released 2021 Annual Report. From its own breakdown - 18% of funds go towards women's team. 39% go towards men's teams. #CanMNT #CanXNT #CanWNT pic.twitter.com/jXyRVgwjFi— Meaghen Johnson (@MeaghenJohnson) June 5, 2022

MORE: Why Canada's qualification to the men's World Cup can change the sport
How did Canada Soccer respond to player protest?

Canada Soccer president Nick Bontis and general secretary Earl Cochrane held a press conference hours after the match cancellation, which started with an opening statement on behalf of the organization.

The message was that Canada Soccer had serious constraints, but was available and open to negotiations.

"Canada Soccer is very disappointed in the players' decision to refuse to play today," Bontis said in his initial remarks. The federation apologized to the fans and expressed appreciation.

"Canada Soccer has been working with the players in good faith to find a way forward that is fair and equitable for all," his statement continued. "We would like to have a fact-based discussion based on the financial constraints that Canada Soccer must live in."

"We believe we made a fair offer to the players," Bontis said. "We benchmarked our offer with other offers around the world."

With regards to the gender inequity allegation by the players, Bontis stated that Canada Soccer's offer included an identical offer to the men's and women's national teams. However, he called the men's proposal "untenable" and something Canada Soccer could not afford.

According to journalist Rick Westhead, Canada Soccer revealed that the initial demands of the players was for between 75 to 100 percent of the World Cup prize money, with Canada Soccer countering with an offer of 60 percent split evenly between men and women.

The prize money share requested from the men's players in their published note (above) was 40 percent.

Canada Soccer disputes the figures in our story. Organization says CMNT demand was for 75-100% of the World Cup prize money.

Canada Soccer says it offered 60%, to be split equally between men's and women's teams. https://t.co/S36CS1LBqW— Rick Westhead (@rwesthead) June 4, 2022

Canada Soccer's long-term partner Canadian Soccer Business (CSB), which was specifically cited by both men's and women's teams as they seek clarification regarding the terms of their contractual relationship, also chimed in with a statement of their own.

CSB is an agency owned by Canadian Premier League club owners, which manages commercial assets for soccer properties in Canada, including corporate partnerships and media rights for Canada's men's and women's national teams, the annual Canadian Championship tournament, and the Canadian Premier League.

Canadian Soccer Business (CSB) says it was "prepared to be fully transparent about our agreement [with Canada Soccer] which has included an unprecedented amount of revenue to Canada Soccer in the past 18 months in the forms of sponsorship and international media dollars."

CSB added that "we have invested tens of millions of dollars, and will continue to invest millions more to benefit Canadian soccer."

The Canadian Soccer Business has released the following statement. We’re back up on @onesoccer for Canada Soccer president Nick Bontis’ press conference at 8.15 PM ET.

WATCH: https://t.co/u3mtnXiFBx#CanMNT pic.twitter.com/lQmUPXcPoJ— Oliver Platt (@plattoli) June 6, 2022
How did Canada fans respond to player protest?

Canada's supporter group The Voyageurs released a statement on the situation holding a neutral position but seeming to support the players in their plight.

"Beyond their incredible achievements, [the players] represent Canada with class and dignity, and we feel both proud and fortunate to be able to support them," the fan statement read. "They are incredible human beings and are very deserving.

"However, we are not privy to the details of player compensation past or present, details regarding allocation of World Cup prize money, or the details of Canada Soccer's budget," the statement continued. "It would be inappropriate for us to take a specific stance on this issue at this time."

For those interested, we’ve decided to make a statement regarding the current #CanMNT & @CanadaSoccerEN @CanadaSoccerFR situation. pic.twitter.com/9TMAjB8JFP— The Voyageurs (@thevoyageurs) June 5, 2022
Are future Canada soccer games in jeopardy?

In the player statement, the match on June 9 against Curacao in CONCACAF Nations League play could be in jeopardy. It is scheduled to be played at BC Place in Vancouver.

"We hope Canada Soccer will take decisive steps to work with our team so we can be back on the field for our match on June 9," the statement read towards the conclusion.

Canada Soccer CEO Nick Bontis stated that he has been "immediately available" to players for negotiations both upon landing in Vancouver as well as after the press conference held on Sunday, June 5.

Bontis stated that the Curacao match in CONCACAF Nations League play would be a "CONCACAF issue" if a deal could not be reached. CONCACAF is the regional confederation comprising nations of North America, Central America and the Caribbean of which Canadian Victor Montagliani is president.

There is also a Nations League trip to Honduras scheduled to be played on June 13.

Trial set to start for federal public servant charged in shipbuilding leak case

OTTAWA — The trial of a federal public servant accused of leaking cabinet secrets about a shipbuilding project is set to begin this morning.


© Provided by The Canadian Press

Matthew Matchett was charged with one count of breach of trust in February 2019 for allegedly leaking secret cabinet documents about a contract between the federal government and Chantier Davie shipyard in Quebec in November 2015.

That is when the new Liberal government decided to hold off finalizing a contract with Davie to lease a temporary supply ship for the navy, a deal they later approved.

Matchett was suspended from his job in the federal procurement department in 2018. His lawyer has previously said his client intends to plead not guilty, and his trial by judge and jury is expected to run for several weeks.

In 2017, retired vice-admiral Mark Norman was suspended as the military's second-in-command and later charged with breach of trust in 2018 over allegations he leaked cabinet secrets about the shipbuilding project.

Norman pleaded not guilty and Crown prosecutors eventually stayed the charge in May 2019, saying that new evidence they'd received from Norman's defence team had led them to conclude there was no reasonable chance of a conviction.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 6, 2022.

Long Waits for Surgery, Treatment Cost Canadians Almost $4.1 billion in Lost Wages


Long waits for surgery and medical treatment cost Canadians almost $4.1 billion in lost wages and productivity last year (2021), finds a new study released today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

Preliminary data suggest that an estimated 1.4 million patients waited for medically necessary treatment last year, and each lost an estimated $2,848 (on average) due to lost wages and reduced productivity during working hours.

“Health-care workers across Canada should be commended for the superb job they’re doing to get us through this global pandemic. However, while we are constantly reminded of the consequences of COVID-19, less discussed are the consequences of unreasonable waits for surgery which can range from physical pain and psychological distress for some, to permanent disability and death for others,” said Bacchus Barua, director of health policy studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of The Private Cost of Public Queues for Medically Necessary Care, 2022.

Across Canada, the costs of waiting for medical care were about $4.1 billion.

The study draws upon data from the Fraser Institute’s Waiting Your Turn study, an annual survey of Canadian physicians who, in 2021, reported the national median waiting time from specialist appointment to treatment was 14.5 weeks.


Crucially, the $4.1 billion in lost wages is likely a conservative estimate because it doesn’t account for the additional 11.1-week wait to see a specialist after receiving a referral from a general practitioner.

Taken together (11.1 weeks and 14.5 weeks), the total median wait time in Canada for medical treatment was 25.6 weeks in 2021—the longest in the survey’s history.

“While some of this backlog is the direct result of COVID-19 related closures, results from the same survey suggest that almost as many (1.1 million) patients were waiting for treatment in 2019 – before the pandemic started,” said Mackenzie Moir, Fraser Institute policy analyst and study co-author.

Because wait times and incomes vary by province, so does the cost of waiting for health care. While the highest cost of waiting per patient is estimated to be borne by patients in Nova Scotia ($6,343), Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador reported large decreases in the per patient cost of waiting, warranting caution when interpreting results. Outside the maritime provinces, residents of Manitoba ($3,519) faced the highest per-patient cost of waiting, followed by Alberta ($3,199), Saskatchewan ($3,129).

Shazia Nazir, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Milton Reporter, Milton Reporter

Autonomous Mayflower reaches American shores -- in Canada

A crewless robotic boat that had tried to retrace the 1620 sea voyage of the Mayflower has finally reached the shores of North America — this time in Canada instead of the Massachusetts coast where its namesake landed more than 400 years ago.

The sleek autonomous trimaran docked in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on Sunday, after more than five weeks crossing the Atlantic Ocean from England, according to tech company IBM, which helped build it.

Piloted by artificial intelligence technology, the 50-foot (15-meter) Mayflower Autonomous Ship didn't have a captain, navigator or any humans on board — though it might have helped to have a mechanic.

“The technology that makes up the autonomous system worked perfectly, flawlessly,” said Rob High, an IBM computing executive involved in the project. “Mechanically, we did run into problems.”

Its first attempt at the trans-Atlantic crossing to Plymouth, Massachusetts, in June 2021 was beset by technical glitches, forcing the boat to return to its home port of Plymouth, England.

It set off again from England nearly a year later on April 27, bound for Virginia — but a generator problem diverted it to Portugal's Azores islands, where a team member flew in to perform emergency repairs. More troubles on the open sea came in late May when the U.S.-bound boat developed a problem with the charging circuit for the generator's starter batteries.

AI software is getting better at helping self-driving machines understand their surroundings and pilot themselves, but most robots can't heal themselves when the hardware goes awry.

Nonprofit marine research organization ProMare, which worked with IBM to build the ship, switched to a back-up navigation computer on May 30 and charted a course to Halifax — which was closer than any U.S. destination. The boat's webcam on Sunday morning showed it being towed by a larger boat as the Halifax skyline neared — a safety requirement under international maritime rules, IBM said.

How Close Are We To Peak Oil Demand?

Editor OilPrice.com
Sun, June 5, 2022

Two years ago, British oil and gas supermajor BP Plc. (NYSE:BP) sent shockwaves through the energy markets after it declared that the world was already past Peak Oil demand. In the company's 2020 Energy Outlook, chief executive Bernard Looney pledged that BP would increase its renewables spending twentyfold to $5 billion a year by 2030 and "... not enter any new countries for oil and gas exploration".

That announcement came as a bit of a shocker given how aggressive BP has been in exploring new oil and gas frontiers.

When many analysts talk about Peak Oil, they are usually referring to that point in time when global oil demand enters a phase of terminal and irreversible decline. According to BP, this point has already come and gone, with oil demand slated to fall by at least 10% in the current decade and by as much as 50% over the next two. BP noted that historically, energy demand has risen steadily in tandem with global economic growth with few interruptions; however, the COVID-19 crisis and increased climate action might have permanently altered that playbook.

However, BP has been forced to do a mea culpa after it became clear that the COVID-19 pandemic that began more than two years ago has not resulted in a significant reduction in oil demand.

In its Energy Outlook 2022 edition, BP has revised down its forecast for global economic growth saying global GDP will only contract 1.5% by 2025 from 2019 levels compared to its earlier projection of a 2.5% contraction.

BP notes that its former grim outlook was prepared prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine-- another black swan event--which has driven global energy prices higher and cast an uncertain shadow over Russia's oil and gas sector in recent months.

The Scenarios

In its latest report, BP offers three scenarios--all foresee oil demand surpassing pre-pandemic levels by the middle of this decade before beginning to slip to varying degrees.

In the most bullish case for oil, BP projects that crude demand will rise to 101 million b/d in 2025 and remain flat into 2030. After that point, global demand retreats to 98 million b/d by 2035 and to 92 million b/d by 2040.

In yet another scenario that BP has termed "net-zero," which is the most aggressive in terms of global climate ambitions being achieved, the company pegs 2025 demand at 98 million b/d and just 75 million b/d by 2035. BP assumes that a 95% reduction in greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions must be achieved for the net-zero predictions to come true.

In the middle-of-the-road scenario, BP assumes that the world will still be broadly in-line with climate goals but with a 75% reduction in GHG emissions by 2025. This picture of the future suggests that oil demand will be around 96 million b/d in 2025 and 85 million b/d by 2035.

However, recent events in the energy sector suggest that oil companies might get a leeway to grow production and even relax climate goals as long as oil and gas prices remain high.

Last year, Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) found itself in trouble after a tiny hedge fund by the name Engine No. 1 successfully waged a battle to install three directors on the board of Exxon with the goal of pushing the energy giant to reduce its carbon footprint. Engine No. 1 enjoyed the stunning victory thanks to support from BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street who all voted against Exxon's leadership.

Luckily, Exxon has finally managed to turn the tables and get shareholders on its side: last week, Exxon recorded a major victory after its shareholders supported the company's energy transition strategy at the annual general meeting.

Only 28% of the participants backed a resolution filed by the Follow This activist group urging faster action to battle climate change; a proposal calling for a report on low carbon business planning received just 10.5% support, while a report on plastic production garnered a 37% favorable vote.

In other words, it appears that Exxon's legacy fossil fuel business remains safe, at least for now, as long as it keeps returning that excess cash to shareholders in the form of dividends and buybacks.

Just like its bigger peer, Chevron Inc.(NYSE:CVX) shareholders voted on Wednesday against a resolution asking the company to adopt greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets, indicating support for the steps the company already has taken to address climate change.

Just 33% of shareholders voted in favor of the proposal, according to preliminary figures disclosed by the company, a sharp turnaround from last year when 61% of shareholders voted to support a similar proposal.

Meanwhile, Hess Corp. (NYSE: HES) has broken with the industry trend of returning excess cash flows to shareholders after announcing plans for massive capex spending in a bid to boost production. Hess has announced a 2022 capex budget of $2.6b; good for a 37% jump, with Bakken spend up 75% to $790m. In the Bakken, Hess plans to run three rigs to achieve its 168kb/d production target.

Changing Map

In yet another report published in the Geopolitical Intelligence Services blog , Carol Nakhle, CEO of Crystol Energy, says the consensus is that global oil consumption will peak within the next 20 years, but demand will not necessarily fall off a cliff thereafter.

Nakhle notes that in OECD countries, oil demand peaked in 2005 at around 50 million barrels per day. What has been driving the growth in global demand is the developing world, primarily Asia (mainly China and India – the second- and third-largest oil consumers in the world after the United States) and the Middle East (led by Saudi Arabia, which is also the sixth-largest consumer in the world). In fact, between 2009 and 2019, almost all the growth in global oil demand was driven by the developing world, with Asia expected to continue to be the growth center in the coming years. Non-OECD countries account for ~54% of global oil consumption.

Nakhle says, "…after peak oil demand is reached, it will at some point plateau and then shrink. In a growing market, there is space for everyone. In a shrinking market, for one country to increase production, supply from another country is squeezed out, usually done by price competition. In such a world, market power will shift toward consumers. Today they are desperately looking for oil; tomorrow they will be in a much stronger position."

She says that once global oil demand peaks and starts to fall, competition among producers to sell more oil and safeguard market share will intensify. In a stagnant or shrinking market, oil and gas producers will face new rules, very different from the ones they have been accustomed to. For instance, OPEC's strategy of cutting supplies to increase prices or Russia threatening to cut its supplies to keep sanctions off its oil exports will no longer be effective. To be fair, higher prices will attract additional production, as it always does. However, In a shrinking market, this will force prices lower, and any deliberate attempts to cut production to raise prices would simply backfire.

In the end, the consumer will end up holding most of the chips.

By Alex Kimani for Oilprice.com

The arrest heard 'round the crypto world

Lucas Matney and Anita Ramaswamy
Sun, June 5, 2022, 

Hey everyone, and welcome back to Chain Reaction.

Last week, we discussed $4.5 billion in new crypto funds from a16z. This week, we're talking about the arrest that has everyone in the NFT space sweating bullets.


Ocean climate tech
Image Credits: Getty Images

crimes of the future

The crypto space has been moving so quickly over the past couple years that builders have generally seemed to believe existing rules didn’t apply to them. Well, after years of snails’ pace legal action, it seems U.S. prosecutors are starting to feel it’s time to challenge that perception.

This week, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York arrested and filed charges against a former OpenSea executive who used his position to front-run NFT projects that were going to be listed on the home page of the marketplace. Members of the community discovered his actions by tracking his activity on public blockchains.

I would’ve loved to rant on this during the podcast, but news broke while we were recording, so I’ll leave you with some thoughts here.

The arrest was pretty much a massive shock to people in the NFT space who generally believed that Nate Chastain had acted unethically but that it couldn't be "insider trading" because NFTs weren't securities. This is a framing that was held by many, including Chastain's boss at OpenSea who fired him.

"I do think there was a misframing of it as insider trading. We don't view NFTs as financial assets, so that does not apply. That's a very specific term for a very specific thing," OpenSea Devin Finzer told Decrypt in September.

Former OpenSea exec arrested and charged with insider trading of NFTs

There are an awful lot of people taking a very close reading of the SDNY press release, which states it specifically charged Chastain "with wire fraud and money laundering in connection with a scheme to commit insider trading in Non-Fungible Tokens." They notably describe NFTs as "digital assets" later in the release. Also, it's worth reiterating that this is the DOJ -- not the SEC -- charging him, though it is the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force handling this case.

Now, why don't crypto people want NFTs to be classified as securities? Well, there's a lot of existing regulatory guidance there, and most feel it would basically upend the industry if NFTs were unilaterally subjected to securities law; it would certainly raise the barrier of entry for creation of NFTs and curtail a lot of the experimentation happening in the space right now.

Another big reason that it would be bad if NFTs are treated as securities is that it would mean an awful lot of people have been doing illegal things for an awfully long time.

The NFT space made it through this latest crypto bull run without any meaningful regulation coming down on it. As NFT volumes start to show signs of slowing, there's a fear that more regulation could be just around the corner.

the latest pod

What’s up, it’s Anita here to give you a preview of the latest episode of our Chain Reaction podcast, where we unpack the latest web3 news, block-by-block for the crypto-curious.

This week, we talked about Coinbase’s new approach to what can be one of the most anxiety-inducing aspects of corporate life -- the performance review. Our colleague, Amanda, wrote about how the crypto exchange is trying to emulate Ray Dalio’s hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates, by letting employees give each other real-time feedback and ratings. Is this part of tech’s descent into a Black Mirror-style reality? Tune in to hear our thoughts.

We also recapped two recent crypto comeback stories, one from the OnlyFans founder and CEO who left the company after trying to ban sexually explicit content from the platform and another from the architect of the highly unstable stablecoin, Terra.

Our guest this week was Outdoor Voices founder Ty Haney, who shared details about her pivot from athleisure to crypto with her new venture, Try Your Best. Haney broke the news on our podcast that the startup just landed its second round of institutional funding.

Where startup money is moving in the crypto world:

New York-based enterprise blockchain startup Digital Asset took in a strategic investment of undisclosed size from Japanese banking giant SBI Holdings.


InfStones, a blockchain infrastructure provider, nabbed $66 million in a round led by SoftBank and GGV.


Indian music NFT startup FanTiger bagged $5.5 million for its seed round led by Multicoin Capital.


LivingCities, a metaverse-focused social startup co-founded by Foursquare founder Dennis Crowley, banked $4 million in early funding led by DCVC.


Zimbabwe’s FlexID received an undisclosed amount of funding from Algorand for its blockchain-based identity system for the underbanked.


Web3 augmented reality gaming company Jadu raised $36 million in funding for its Series A led by Bain Capital Crypto.


VillageStudio raised $2.3 million in an Animoca Brands-led round for its NFT-based Playken avatars.


Web3 payments API Merge got $9.5 million in seed funding led by Octopus Ventures.


GoSats, an India-based bitcoin rewards platform, raised $4 million in a pre-Series A funding round from investors including Y Combinator, Accel and Gossamer Capital.


DAO management platform Utopia Labs closed a $23 million Series A led by Paradigm.

Foursquare founder banks funding for mystery 3D social network startup
the week in web3

It was an uncharacteristically quiet week in web3, and our team members in the U.S. took some time to enjoy the rare, uneventful long weekend. Still, some big personalities made waves in the space, for better and for worse.

OnlyFans founder Tim Stokely is pivoting to crypto after leaving the company last December following controversy over his push to ban sexually explicit content from the platform. Anita wrote about the new “family-friendly” NFT startup he’s launching alongside another former OnlyFans exec that will allow people to buy, sell and trade virtual cards featuring influencers and celebrities.

NFT platform OpenSea had fired Nate Chastain, its head of product, back in September after he was accused of front-running trades on the platform. Now, he’s been arrested and charged with insider trading; Lucas has the details.

OnlyFans founder makes crypto debut selling influencer trading cards
added analysis

Here's some of this week's crypto analysis you can read on our subscription service TC+ (written by TC's Jacquelyn Melinek):

VC funding for crypto projects fell in May, but many investors remain bullish
VC funding in crypto has fallen month-over-month from April to May, but many investors are not concerned. “For investors like us, it’s time to buy,” Stan Miroshnik, partner and co-founder of 10T Holdings, told TechCrunch. The pace of capital deployment might be more measured as investors and founders alike become more calculated, but VCs will still continue to have a robust amount of activity, Miroshnik said. Even though there might be a gloomy sentiment in digital asset markets, true crypto-native funds will continue to invest heavily, Saurabh Sharma, head of investments at Jump Crypto, said to TechCrunch.

As crypto becomes more mainstream, can it stay decentralized?
Whether it’s first-time buyers of cryptocurrency or people learning more about NFTs, Bitcoin and the general crypto ecosystem, there has been an uptick globally in awareness of crypto. But as it gains momentum, regulators worldwide will continue to monitor the space more closely, but the headline speaks for itself: what does this mean for the future of crypto? A number of founders and executives in the industry weighed in with their thoughts.

Longtime Bitcoiner Dan Held says this ‘crypto winter’ won’t be as harsh as others
As the cryptomarkets remain bearish, some longtime market participants, like Dan Held, director of growth marketing at crypto exchange Kraken, aren’t worried. Even though there is lots of talk of a crypto winter circulating through the community, Held said the sentiment for this current market cycle is different. While he -- and many others -- persisted through major market cycles over the years, the narratives have shifted a lot, thanks to more prominent institutional players and massive amounts of capital entering the space.

Toshiba directors exchange criticism over public statements


Makiko Yamazaki
Mon, June 6, 2022


FILE PHOTO: Toshiba Corp's annual general meeting with its shareholders in Tokyo

TOKYO (Reuters) - External directors at Toshiba Corp exchanged criticism on Monday over statements on board decisions, signalling a public rift as the embattled conglomerate reviews strategic options including going private.

In an annual business report released on Monday, Toshiba external directors Mariko Watahiki and Katsunori Hashimoto, both members of Toshiba's three-member audit committee, were quoted as saying that external director Raymond Zage raised concern about Toshiba's governance by breaking ranks with the board's official stance after a March meeting.

Zage defended his actions in a statement to Reuters, saying the criticisms were misleading and that his actions had received a positive shareholder response.

Company documents also confirmed that Watahiki had objected to two nominations supported by the board. Reuters reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter, that Watahiki had objected and that the company, in a rare move, would make her objections public.

In March, Zage came out in public support of a proposal from Singapore-based 3D Investment Partners that the company solicit buyout offers from private equity firms. It had been rejected by the board but was later taken up, and voted down, at an extraordinary shareholders' meeting.

"(Zage's comments) damaged shareholder confidence in the board and caused concerns about corporate governance," Watahiki and Hashimoto were quoted as saying. "Even if the above act cannot be said to constitute a breach of the duty of care."

Zage said in the statement to Reuters: "(It is) inaccurate, incomplete and misleading representing a failure on the part of the authors to consider the substantial positive shareholder feedback as well as the content of substantial discussions at the board on this matter both before and after the public statement."

Toshiba declined to comment on the matter.

Zage also chairs the nomination committee, which proposed the two board candidates - from U.S. activist hedge funds Elliott Management and Farallon Capital Management - formally opposed by Watahiki.

Caught up in accounting and governance crises since 2015, Toshiba has had tussles with its activist shareholder base, some of whom want it taken private.

Toshiba said last week that it had received eight initial proposals to take it private and two proposals for capital alliances that would leave it publicly listed.

(Reporting by Makiko Yamazaki; Editing by Edmund Klamann)

There’s no reason to question why BTS was at the White House

Kuan-lin F. Liu - 

New Taipei City, Taiwan — Global K-pop icons BTS traveled to the White House on Tuesday to meet with President Joe Biden and speak to a packed briefing room of journalists about anti-Asian hate. On the last day of Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, the seven members of the boy band — RM, Jin, Suga, J-Hope, Jimin, V and Jungkook — took turns at the podium to voice their support for the AANHPI community, condemn anti-Asian hate and promote inclusivity.



While the many reporters present and more than 300,000 viewers streaming on YouTube were clearly excited about the group’s presence and involvement with the campaign against anti-Asian violence, others, such as Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, were less than impressed. On his show, Carlson took a quick jab at the Biden administration for getting “a Korean pop group to discuss anti-Asian hate crimes in the United States.”

His comment may have been aimed at the president, but it caught the attention of the group’s fandom, known as the BTS Army, who quickly flooded social media to push back against Carlson’s dismissive comment.

By raising an eyebrow at the involvement of BTS in a campaign against anti-Asian hate in the U.S., Carlson and like-minded critics gave themselves away as being ignorant of the group’s history of speaking up about social issues and donating to social causes, even ones pertaining specifically to the U.S. There was no reason to question why BTS was at the White House.

Following last year’s Atlanta spa shootings that killed eight people, including six Asian women, BTS posted an impassioned statement in both Korean and English to its official Twitter account denouncing anti-Asian hate, violence and racial discrimination of any form. In the statement, the group briefly mentioned their own experiences as victims of anti-Asian racism, making it clear that this was an issue particularly close to their hearts.

“We recall moments when we faced discrimination as Asians,” the statement said. “We have endured expletives without reason and were mocked for the way we look. We were even asked why Asians spoke in English.”

The tweet became the most retweeted tweet of 2021, with approximately 1 million retweets and 2.5 million likes worldwide.

In 2020, the group made a $1 million donation to Black Lives Matter shortly after the death of George Floyd. Standing in solidarity with Black Lives Matter supporters, the group posted to its Twitter account using the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter.

BTS sits down with Biden to discuss hate crimes against Asians

There is no denying that by being from South Korea, BTS may not have had the same experiences as those in the AANHPI community who grew up in the U.S. But this does not mean that the band cannot understand what people who have experienced anti-Asian hate, or any racially motivated hate for that matter, have gone through and continue to go through, nor does it preclude the band’s members ​from being allies and lending support to such an important cause.

Unlike some of the group’s peers in the K-pop industry who are generally advised to stay mum about social issues, BTS is among the most prominent of K-pop artists who have spoken out about such issues. This, some have said, is in part a result of the group’s large number of international fans who have urged the group to use its platform to shine light on these issues, but it is also because of BTS’ own experiences with racism.

This personal connection to the issue, coupled with its sense of responsibility and love for its fans around the world, seems to be what continues to motivate the group to speak out and act to effect social change. And it is what makes the band members the right spokespeople for the issue of anti-Asian hate — even in the U.S.

BTS has a massive global fanbase with fans of different races and nationalities. So, when the K-pop superstars speak and address their BTS Army, as they did during their speech at the White House, they are speaking to Americans as well as to people from all over the world. Their message to promote Asian inclusion, diversity and representation is one that will give hope to their Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander fans and inspire non-AANHPI fans to join the movement against anti-Asian hate.

When it comes to changing social attitudes and culture, a good message is not enough. A message is only as strong as who delivers it, and how. As artists, the members of BTS have always genuinely addressed the issues young people go through and conveyed a message of hope in their music, which is one of the reasons their fans connect with the group so deeply. Personally, I got through a particularly rough bout of homesickness when I lived in Hong Kong by listening to the band’s “Map of the Soul: 7” album and watching its hilarious behind-the-scenes videos.

As BTS became more prominent globally, it partnered with UNICEF for the “Love Myself” campaign to end violence against children and teens so that they may lead safe lives. The band has also spoken at the United Nations General Assembly three times about a number of important world issues such as poverty, climate change and the Covid-19 pandemic. What the group has said and done has resonated with its fans, and the BTS Army has modeled many of its own projects after the group’s philanthropic efforts and causes.

Anti-Asian hate is a global issue, exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. It was only fitting that Biden, the leader of the free world, invited BTS — undeniably a global force to be reckoned with — to speak out about the issue and, it is hoped, make things better in every corner of the world.

South Korean steelmaker warns green push will benefit China and India

Madeleine Bruder

 

South Korea’s Posco has warned that efforts to make its steelmaking processes less polluting in the face of tougher regulations and customer demands could make the company less cost-competitive against Chinese and Indian rivals.

The world’s sixth-biggest steelmaker is South Korea’s worst polluter, as conventional processes of producing the metal that use coking coal to melt iron ore and remove oxygen are highly carbon-intensive. The company wants to replace coal with hydrogen by 2050 to meet tougher domestic regulations and growing public calls for low-carbon steel products.

Posco estimates that decarbonising its steelmaking operations will cost about Won40tn ($32bn) and wants to apply the hydrogen-based steelmaking technology to eight furnaces from 2034.

“We are taking environmental concerns seriously as our customers like Apple and Ørsted are asking us to supply green steel while Europe is imposing a carbon border tax and South Korea is reducing carbon credits for steelmakers,” Cho Ju-ik, head of Posco’s hydrogen business, told the Financial Times in an interview. “We need to fundamentally change how we make steel.”

But he added that the transition would weaken the company’s competitive position as Chinese and Indians rivals face less pressure to change their approach.

“Our concern is if countries can strike a balance. Europe, Japan and South Korea are going aggressively [towards green steelmaking] but our competitors in China and India face looser domestic regulations,” he said.

“This can put us at a disadvantage. China also has good conditions for producing renewable energy, which will result in different hydrogen prices and steelmaking costs.”

The steel industry accounts for 7-9 per cent of all fossil fuel emissions and some of the world’s biggest steelmakers, including ArcelorMittal, ThyssenKrupp and China’s Baowu, have launched initiatives to reduce their carbon footprint. Sweden’s SSAB is at the forefront of such efforts, producing fossil-free steel using hydrogen gas last year.

Analysts said that building a hydrogen supply chain was crucial to Posco’s transition to green steelmaking, as South Korea lacks enough renewable energy capacity to produce sufficient quantities of the gas.

Cho estimated that Posco needed about 5mn tonnes of hydrogen by 2050 and planned to source 80 per cent of supplies of the gas from abroad. The company has signed preliminary deals with global oil producers to secure hydrogen from imported natural gas.

It also plans to develop green hydrogen projects using renewable sources in Australia, Malaysia and the Middle East.

“It is not easy to secure the price competitiveness of green steel because it is difficult to mass produce green hydrogen from renewable sources,” said Kim Kyung-sik, who heads Steel Scrap Research Center. “The industry has a long way to go for decarbonisation in terms of technological development and cost reduction.”

Can Anyone Compete With China’s Battery Dominance?


Editor OilPrice.com
Sat, June 4, 2022

The global electric battery market has expanded dramatically over the last year, as the push to shift from traditionally fuelled cars to electric alternatives has never been stronger. So, how will emerging battery markets overcome supply chain challenges to ensure that the future of electric battery development is secure?

The global supply chain is still being hit hard by ongoing pandemic restrictions, the Covid spill-over effect, and, most recently, the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This means that renewable energy projects are seeing lengthy delays and the production of core components is being outweighed by the growing demand. But energy and manufacturing firms around the world are optimistic about raising battery production to meet consumer needs as demand increases over the next decade.

McKinsey estimates that the global battery market will grow by over 20 percent per year until 2030 to reach at least $360 billion, with upper-end estimates increasing to $410 billion. In addition, the development of one 30 to 40 GWh factory per year would create around 3,200 direct jobs.

Europe and North America are likely to see the biggest opportunities, with the potential for substantial growth in their largely underdeveloped battery markets over the next decade. However, China and South Korea already have well-established battery markets, which will continue to expand, presenting the main competition. Based on similar industries, McKinsey predicts that the global market will consolidate around ten to 15 battery cell manufacturing players, meaning that the time to develop competitive projects is quickly running out. Battery performance, the scale of production, and the competitiveness of costs will likely be the driving factors for competing companies.


With the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, it has become evident that Europe and North America must decrease their reliance on authoritarian powers to ensure the future stability of their major industries and energy supply. In addition, pandemic-related supply chain disruptions have already demonstrated European and U.S. dependence on China’s manufactured goods for many industrial sectors. As the U.S. and Europe develop their battery manufacturing industries, this could be the chance for the two regions to overcome supply chain challenges and establish stronger energy security for the next decade.

However, emerging markets are already stumbling at the first hurdle. According to recent reports, the U.K. may fail to establish a strong electric car industry by the end of the decade – in line with its ban on the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030 – if it cannot develop its battery manufacturing industry more rapidly. Automakers are ambitious in their rollout of several electric vehicle models over the coming years, expecting consumer demand to grow significantly as they switch away from traditionally fuelled cars.

However, the limit on the import of low-cost Asian batteries means that the U.K. will have to develop its battery manufacturing industry to meet demand. The main obstacle is the lack of suitable sites for the development of ‘gigafactories’, as well as the tendency to import batteries from other European countries.

Related: Why Russia’s Economy Hasn’t Collapsed Under The Weight Of Sanctions

The U.K. government has pledged $1.2 billion in support of the country’s EV battery supply chain but is doing little to encourage greater battery plant development. At present, researchers Benchmark Mineral Intelligence estimate that the U.K. will require around 175 GWh of battery capacity by 2035 to supply around 3 million EVs. It is expected to achieve 56.9 GWh by 2030, based on current developments. Meanwhile, the rest of Europe is expected to reach an output of 821.3 GWh, with Germany leading the market.

And some say that others simply cannot replicate the success of China when it comes to lithium batteries, as it continues to dominate the global market. One reason is the significant head start that China has had over its competitors, many of which are currently searching for suitable locations for huge battery factories before they can even consider building them.

Despite its lack of lithium reserves, China has established itself as the world’s biggest lithium battery manufacturer, with around 72 percent of the battery market share in 2020, compared to 60 percent in 2018. Some estimates are even higher. Comparatively, the U.S. holds around 8.5 percent of the market share.

China has achieved its battery dominance by investing huge amounts of money in its EV market. The Chinese government has invested anywhere between $60 billion and $100 billion in subsiding the production of EVs to rapidly expand the market and create greater demand for lithium batteries. It has also been subsiding battery production costs to boost output. But the rest of the world simply cannot offer this type of financing, particularly at a time when countries are racing to secure their energy security in the face of major oil and gas shortages.

Another major obstacle for emerging battery manufacturers is the inevitable increase in raw material prices over the coming years. EV battery prices have been decreasing in recent years as the production scale has risen. Battery cells cost around $128 per kilowatt-hour at present. But prices could increase by 22 percent between 2023 and 2026 due to an increase in raw material costs, to reach $138 per kilowatt-hour.

Sam Jaffe, Vice President of battery solutions at E Source, stated “The tsunami of demand is coming” but “I don’t think the battery industry is ready for it.” The global shortage of raw materials, such as lithium, has exposed the battery manufacturing industry’s weakness and the need for much greater levels of mining to meet the growing global demand. This is just one more challenge that emerging manufacturing countries must face as they try to develop their battery manufacturing industries to compete with that of China.

As global demand for batteries increases, in line with growing EV demand, several countries around the world hold the potential to establish their battery manufacturing industries to compete with the dominant Chinese market. However, companies across Europe and North America must overcome significant challenges if they want to solidify their reputations as major global players in the battery market.

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com