Connect with us

Published

on

BitMEX founder Arthur Hayes expects Bitcoin to be $750,000 by 2026. Heres how and why. 9118 Total views 19 Total shares Listen to article 0:00 Markets News Join us on social networksLove him or hate him, when Arthur Hayes speaks, people listen.

Last week, as a guest on Impact Theory with Tom Bilyeu, Hayes made the case for why he believes Bitcoin (BTC) price will hit $750,000 to $1 million by 2026.

Hayes said:I absolutely agree that there is going to be a major financial crisis, probably as bad or worse than the great depression, sometime near the end of the decade; before we get there, were gonna have, I think, the largest bull market in stocks, real estate, crypto, art, you name it, that weve ever seen since WW2.

Hayes cites the nearly predictable response of the United States government rushing in to intervene in every economic crisis with a bail-out as a key catalyst behind the structural problems in the U.S. economy.

He explained that this essentially creates an endless cycle of central bank printing, which leads to inflation and prevents the economy from going through natural market cycles of growth and correction. We all have collectively agreed that the government is there essentially to attempt to remove the business cycle. Like, there should never be bad things that happen to the economy, and if there are, we want the government to come in and destroy the free market. So, every time weve had a financial crisis over the past 80 years. What happens? The government rushes in, and they essentially destroy some part of the free market because they want to save the system.

Lets take a quick look at a few of the catalysts that Hayes believes will back Bitcoins move into six-figure territory. Mounting debt and out of control inflation.

According to Hayes, mounting government debt, a large amount that needs to be rolled over and diminishing productivity can only be addressed with money printing. While monetary expansion does lead to bull markets, the consequence tends to be high inflation. In the first instance, it creates a massive bull market in stocks, crypto, real estate, things that have a fixed supply, maybe theyre productive and have some earnings. But after that, were going to find out that, actually, the government cant save everything. It cant just print as much money as they think to try to save themselves by fixing the yield and price of their bonds, and were going to get a generational collapse.

Hayes expects a massive top at some point in 2026, followed by a great depression-like situation by the end of the decade.The U.S. government bankrupted the banking system

When asked about future contributors to inflation, Hayes zoned in on the $7.75 trillion in U.S. debt that must be rolled over by 2026 and the yield curve inversion in U.S. bonds.

Traditionally, China, Japan and other nations were the main buyers of U.S. debt, but this is not the case anymore a change that Hayes believes will exacerbate the situation in the states.

Why do I love these markets right now when yields are screaming higher?

Bank models have no concept of a bear steepener occurring. Take a look at the top right quadrant of historical interest rate regimes.

It’s basically empty. pic.twitter.com/P6MQnCU73N Arthur Hayes (@CryptoHayes) October 4, 2023

According to Hayes, the U.S. banking system is functionally insolvent because the regulators made the rules in such a way that it was profitable from an accounting perspective, not an economic perspective, to essentially take in deposits and buy low-yielding Treasurys, and they could do it with almost infinite leverage and a few basis points differing in the change of the price, and everyone makes a lot of money and gets a big bonus. The banks collectively bought all these treasuries in 2021, and obviously, the price went down a lot since then, and thats why we have the regional banking crisis.

The largest concern expressed by Hayes is that at a structural level, the U.S. banking system cannot buy more debt because it cannot afford to because it is structurally insolvent. The Federal Reserve has committed to doing quantitative tightening, so its not accumulating more Treasurys.

Hayes explained that the market is digesting this, and the nuance here is that despite high rates on U.S. Treasurys, gold prices remain high and certain market participants who previously were treasury buyers are disinterested.

Currently, banks struggle to attract deposits, and the difficulty of matching their deposit rates to the current rates available in the market creates revenue and debt management stress at a level that could become critical to the function of the entire banking system. Like many cryptocurrency advocates, Hayes believes that its in times like this that a certain cohort of investors begins to look at different investment options, including Bitcoin. Hayes view on why Bitcoin is destined for $750,000

Despite what appears to be a generally dismal outlook on the global and U.S. economy, Hayes still expects Bitcoin price to outperform, placing a target estimate in the $750,000 to $1 million range by the end of 2026.

Hayes expects Bitcoin to continue:Chopping around $25,000 to $30,000 this year as we get to some sort of financial disturbance and people recognize that real rates are negative. If the economy is growing at a nominal rate of 10%, but Im only getting 5% or 6%, even though its high, people on the margin are going to start buying other stuff, crypto being one of those things.

Coming into 2024, Hayes said either a financial crisis will push rates closer to 0%, or the government will keep raising rates, but not as fast as governments spend money and people continue looking for better returns elsewhere.

The eventual approval of a spot Bitcoin exchange-traded fund in the U.S., Europe and perhaps Hong Kong, plus the halving event, could push the price to a new all-time high at $70,000 in June or July of 2024. Regaining the all-time high by the end of 2024 is when the real fun starts and the real bull market starts, and Bitcoin enters the 750,0000 to $1 million on the upside.

When asked whether the estimated price level would stick, Hayes agreed that a 70% to 90% drawdown would occur in BTC price, just like it has after each bull market.

This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision. # Bitcoin # Cryptocurrencies # Federal Reserve # Central Bank # Bitcoin Price # Hyperinflation # Markets # Stocks # Inflation # Interest Rates

Add reaction

Add reaction Read more How to actually spend your Bitcoin, Explained How will CBDCs be used for political oppression in your country? The economy is surging which means it might be time to start buying Bitcoin

Continue Reading

Sports

Is it the coach or the program? Ranking CFB coaches while factoring in expectations

Published

on

By

Is it the coach or the program? Ranking CFB coaches while factoring in expectations

Back in May, ESPN’s team of college football reporters voted on the sport’s best coaches for 2025. The results were about as you would expect: Start with the three active guys who have most recently won national titles (Georgia’s Kirby Smart, Ohio State’s Ryan Day, Clemson’s Dabo Swinney), move on to guys with recent top-five finishes or national title game appearances (Notre Dame’s Marcus Freeman, Texas’ Steve Sarkisian, Oregon’s Dan Lanning, Alabama’s Kalen DeBoer, Penn State’s James Franklin), then squeeze in a couple of long-term overachievers at the end (Utah’s Kyle Whittingham, Iowa State’s Matt Campbell).

The rankings made plenty of sense, but I couldn’t help but notice that the top eight coaches on the list all work for some of the richest, most well-supported programs in the country. There are some epic pressures associated with leading these programs — just ask Day — but there are also major advantages. It might only take a good head coach to do great things in those jobs, while at programs with smaller alumni bases or lesser historic track records, it might take a great coach to do merely good things. They’re such different jobs that it’s almost impossible to even know how to compare the performance of, say, Matt Campbell to Steve Sarkisian. Could Campbell have led Texas to back-to-back CFP semifinals? Could Sark have brought ISU its first two AP top-15 finishes?

The May rankings made me want to see if there were a way to apply stats to the conversation. If you think about it, we’re basically measuring two things when we’re gauging coach performance: overall quality and quality relative to the expectations of the job. I thought it would be fun to come up with a blend of those two things and see what the results told us.

Performance versus expectation

Gauging overall performance is easy enough. You could simply look at win percentage, and it would tell you quite a bit. From 2015 to 2024, the active coaches with the best FBS win percentages (minimum 30 games) were Day (.870), Lanning (.854), Swinney (.850) and Smart (.847). All ranked high in the May rankings. I tend to want to get fancy and use my SP+ ratings whenever possible, and they tell a similar tale. Looking at average SP+ ratings for the past decade, the top active coaches are Day (30.4), Smart (27.0), Lanning (22.3), Swinney (21.9), Franklin (20.3) and Freeman (19.0). They’re all in the May top 10 too.

Again, though, all of those coaches are employed by college football royalty. (Granted, Swinney gets bonus points for helping Clemson turn into college football royalty, but still.) Isn’t it more impressive to win 11 regular-season games at Indiana, as Curt Cignetti did in 2024, than to go 10-4 like Swinney did? Isn’t it probably harder to finish 12th in SP+ at SMU, as Rhett Lashlee did in 2024, than to finish fifth like Franklin did?

I’ve begun to incorporate teams’ performance against long-term averages into my preseason SP+ projections, and it seems we could use a very similar concept to evaluate coach performances. For each year someone is a head coach, we could compare his team’s SP+ rating for that season to the school’s average from the 20 previous years. (If the school is newer to FBS and doesn’t have a 20-year average, we can use whatever average exists to date. And for a program’s first FBS season, we can simply compare the team’s SP+ rating to the overall average for first-year programs.)

By this method, the 10 best single-season coaching performances of the past 20 years include Art Briles at Baylor in 2013-14, Jim Harbaugh at Stanford in 2010, Mark Mangino at Kansas in 2007, Bobby Petrino at Louisville in 2006, Greg Schiano at Rutgers in 2006 and Jamey Chadwell at Coastal Carolina in 2020 — legendary seasons of overachievement — plus perhaps lesser-remembered performances such as Gary Andersen at Utah State in 2012, Matt Wells at Utah State in 2018 and Brian Kelly at Cincinnati in 2007.

As far as single-season overachievement goes, that’s a pretty good list. And if we look at a longer-term sample — coaches who have led FBS programs for at least nine of the past 20 years — here are the 15 best performance versus baseline averages.

(Note: I’m looking only at performances within the past 20 years, so Nick Saban’s work at LSU (2000-04) or Michigan State (1995-99), for instance, isn’t included. I also went with nine years instead of 10 so Smart’s current nine-year run at Georgia could be included in the sample.)

Best performance vs. historic baseline averages for the past 20 years (min. nine seasons):

1. Chris Petersen, Boise State (2006-13) and Washington (2014-19): +12.8 points above historic baseline

2. Art Briles, Houston (2005-07) and Baylor (2008-15): +12.8

3. Gary Pinkel, Missouri (2005-15): +12.5

4. Nick Saban, Alabama (2007-23): +10.7

5. Jeff Monken, Army (2014-24): +10.3

6. Willie Fritz, Georgia Southern (2014-15), Tulane (2016-23) and Houston (2024): +10.0

7. Lance Leipold, Buffalo (2015-20) and Kansas (2021-24): +9.5

8. Bobby Petrino, Louisville (2005-06), Arkansas (2008-11), Western Kentucky (2013) and Louisville (2014-18): +9.5

9. Gary Patterson, TCU (2005-21): +8.6

10. Jim Harbaugh, Stanford (2007-10) and Michigan (2015-23): +8.5

11. Blake Anderson, Arkansas State (2014-20) and Utah State (2021-23): +8.5

12. Steve Spurrier, South Carolina (2005-15): +8.2

13. Greg Schiano, Rutgers (2005-11 and 2020-24): +7.8

14. Jeff Brohm, Western Kentucky (2014-16), Purdue (2017-22) and Louisville (2023-24): +7.7

15. David Cutcliffe, Duke (2008-21): +7.7

If we are looking for pure overachievement and aren’t in the mood to reward coaches for winning at schools that always win, this is again a pretty good list. Petersen was spectacular at both Boise State and Washington, while Briles, Pinkel, Monken and Patterson all won big at schools that hadn’t won big in quite a while. (Monken, in fact, is still winning big.) Blake Anderson’s presence surprised me, but most of the names here are extremely well regarded. And Saban’s presence at No. 4, despite coaching at one of the bluest of blue-blood programs, is a pretty good indicator of just how special his reign at Alabama was.

Still, looking only at performance against expectations obviously sells coaches like Saban and Smart short. Saban is probably the best head coach in the sport’s history but ranks only fourth on the above list. Meanwhile, Smart has overachieved by only 6.0 points above the historic baseline in his nine seasons at Georgia thanks to the high bar predecessor Mark Richt set. But he has also won two national titles, overcoming Georgia’s history of falling just short and at least briefly surpassing Saban as well. If our goal is to measure coaching prowess, we need to account for raw quality too.


The best coaches of the past 20 years

If we combine raw SP+ averages with this performance versus baseline average, we can come up with a pretty decent overall coach rating. We can debate the weights involved, but here’s what an overall rating looks like if we use 60% performance versus baseline and 40% SP+ average:

I always like to say that numbers make great starting points for a conversation, and this is a pretty good starting point. Anyone reading this would probably tweak this list to suit their own preferences, and while it probably isn’t surprising that Pinkel is in the top 20, seeing him fourth, ahead of Meyer, Harbaugh and others, is a bit jarring. (I promise that this Mizzou alum didn’t put his finger on the scales.) Regardless, this is a fun mix of guys who won big at big schools and guys who won pretty big at pretty big schools. That was the goal of the exercise.

Maybe the most confusing coach in this top 20 is Dabo Swinney. Clemson had enjoyed just one AP top-five finish in its history before he took over 16 years ago, and he has led the Tigers to 2 national titles, 6 top-five finishes and 7 CFP appearances. And while they haven’t had a true, title-caliber team in a few years, they’ve still won two of the past three ACC crowns. How is he only 10th?

The main culprit for Swinney’s lower-than-expected ranking is his recent performance — it has been inferior to both national title standards and his standards. Since we’re using a team’s performance against 20-year averages, a lot of this rating is basically comparing Swinney to himself, and he hasn’t quite measured up of late.

From 2012 to 2020, Swinney’s average rating was an incredible 17.0, which would have ranked second to only Saban on the list above. But his average over the past four seasons is only 3.6.

Part of what made Saban so impressive was how long he managed to clear the bar he himself was setting in Tuscaloosa. Per SP+, his best team was his 14th — the 2020 team that won his sixth and final title at Bama. While Swinney was basically matching Saban’s standard 12 years into their respective tenures, Saban continued at a particularly high level for at least three more years while Swinney fell off the pace.

Comparing Saban, Swinney and Smart year by year, we see that Smart was hitting Saban-esque levels seven seasons into his tenure, but his rating has fallen off each of the past two seasons. Even Saban slipped starting in Year 15, even though he still had nearly the best program in the sport for a couple more years.


The best coaches of 2025

Six of the top seven coaches on the list above are either retired or coaching in the NFL now, so let’s focus our gaze specifically on the guys who will be leading college teams out onto the field in 2025. Using the same 20-year sample as above — which cuts off the tenure of Iowa’s Kirk Ferentz but includes everything else — here’s how the current crop of FBS head coaches has performed at the FBS level. We’ll break this into two samples: the guys who have coached for at least four years in this sample and the guys who have coached between one and three years.

Our May top 10 list featured eight guys who have been head coaches for at least four years; all eight are represented on this list, including four of the top five. (Sarkisian has averaged a 13.8 rating over the past two seasons, which is a top-five level, but his overall run as head coach at Washington, USC and Texas has featured a number of ups and downs.)

Maybe the name that jumps out the most above is Josh Heupel. I think anyone would consider him a very good coach (he’s 37-15 overall), but he doesn’t exactly draw any “best in the game?” hype. He benefited from a positive situation at UCF, where he inherited a rising program from Scott Frost in 2019 and produced big ratings in his first couple of years on the job. But his average rating at Tennessee has been a solid 14.0 as well; the Volunteers had been up and down for years, but he has produced four top-20 SP+ ratings in a row and two top-10s in the past three years. He might not be getting the credit he deserves for that.

All in all, I enjoy this list. We’ve got mostly predictable names at the top, we’ve got some oldies but (mostly) goodies spread throughout, and we’ve got room for up-and-comers like Jeff Traylor too. This 60-40 approach probably doesn’t give enough respect to the Chris Creightons of the world — the Eastern Michigan coach has overachieved against EMU’s baseline by 7.2 points per season, which is a fantastic average, but at such a hard job, his Eagles have still averaged only a minus-14.4 SP+ rating during his tenure. Still, this is a mostly solid approach.

Now let’s talk about some small-sample all-stars.

Four of the top six of this list coached in the College Football Playoff last season, and while the guys ranked fifth and sixth made our May top 10 list, the guys who won big at SMU and Indiana, not Oregon and Notre Dame, take priority here. I was honestly floored that Curt Cignetti didn’t make our top 10 list; he led James Madison to one of the best FBS debuts ever, going 19-4 in 2022-23, then he moved to Bloomington and led Indiana — INDIANA! — to 11 wins in his first season there.

On this list, however, Rhett Lashlee tops even Cignetti. I’m not sure we’ve talked enough about the job he has done at SMU. He, too, inherited a rising program, as Sonny Dykes had done some of the nitty-gritty work in getting the Mustangs back on their feet (with help from an offensive coordinator named Rhett Lashlee). SMU hadn’t produced a top-50 ranking since 1985 before Dykes did so for three straight seasons (2019-21). But after holding steady in his first year replacing Dykes, Lashlee’s program has ignited: 12-2 and 24th in SP+ in 2023, then 11-3 and 12th in 2024. Looking specifically at the 2021-24 range, as the game has undergone so much change, Lashlee’s 16.8 average rating ranks second overall, behind only Smart (18.0) and ahead of Kiffin (15.1), Cignetti (15.0), Odom (15.0), Heupel (14.0) and Day (13.9).

Along with quite a few others here, Lashlee made my 2024 list of 30 coaches who would define the next decade; he’d definitely still be on the list — along with new additions like GJ Kinne and perhaps Fran Brown — if I remade that list today.

Continue Reading

UK

David Fuller: Offences committed by hospital worker who sexually abused dozens of corpses ‘could happen again’

Published

on

By

David Fuller: Offences committed by hospital worker who sexually abused dozens of corpses 'could happen again'

An inquiry into the case of a hospital worker who sexually abused dozens of corpses has concluded that “offences such as those committed by David Fuller could happen again”.

It found that “current arrangements in England for the regulation and oversight of the care of people after death are partial, ineffective and, in significant areas, completely lacking”.

The first phase of the inquiry found Fuller, 70, was able to offend for 15 years in mortuaries without being suspected or caught due to “serious failings” at the hospitals where he worked.

Phase 2 of the inquiry has examined the broader national picture and considered if procedures and practices in other hospital and non-hospital settings, where deceased people are kept, safeguard their security and dignity.

What were Fuller’s crimes?

Fuller was given a whole-life prison term in December 2021 for the murders of Wendy Knell and Caroline Pierce in Tunbridge Wells, Kent, in 1987.

During his time as a maintenance worker, he also abused the corpses of at least 101 women and girls at Kent and Sussex Hospital and the Tunbridge Wells Hospital before his arrest in December 2020.

His victims ranged in age from nine to 100.

Phase 1 of the inquiry found he entered one mortuary 444 times in the space of one year “unnoticed and unchecked” and that deceased people were also left out of fridges and overnight during working hours.

‘Inadequate management, governance and processes’

Presenting the findings on Tuesday, Sir Jonathan Michael, chair of the inquiry, said: “This is the first time that the security and dignity of people after death has been reviewed so comprehensively.

“Inadequate management, governance and processes helped create the environment in which David Fuller was able to offend for so long.”

He said that these “weaknesses” are not confined to where Fuller operated, adding that he found examples from “across the country”.

“I have asked myself whether there could be a recurrence of the appalling crimes committed by David Fuller. – I have concluded that yes, it is entirely possible that such offences could be repeated, particularly in those sectors that lack any form of statutory regulation.”

Sir Jonathan called for a statutory regulation to “protect the security and dignity of people after death”.

After an initial glance, his interim report already called for urgent regulation to safeguard the “security and dignity of the deceased”.

On publication of his final report he describes regulation and oversight of care as “ineffective, and in significant areas completely lacking”.

David Fuller was an electrician who committed sexual offences against at least 100 deceased women and girls in the mortuaries of the Kent and Sussex Hospital and the Tunbridge Wells Hospital. His victims ranged in age from nine to 100.

This first phase of the inquiry found Fuller entered the mortuary 444 times in a single year, “unnoticed and unchecked”.

It was highly critical of the systems in place that allowed this to happen.

His shocking discovery, looking at the broader industry – be it other NHS Trusts or the 4,500 funeral directors in England – is that it could easily have happened elsewhere.

The conditions described suggest someone like Fuller could get away with it again.

Continue Reading

UK

MasterChef is ‘bigger than individuals’ and ‘can survive’, BBC says

Published

on

By

MasterChef is 'bigger than individuals' and 'can survive', BBC says

BBC director-general Tim Davie has said MasterChef can survive its current scandal as it is “much bigger than individuals” – but the corporation must “make sure we’re in the right place in terms of the culture of the show”.

On Monday, it was revealed an independent review into “inappropriate behaviour” by MasterChef presenter Gregg Wallace had upheld more than half of the allegations against him.

A few hours later, Wallace’s former MasterChef co-presenter, John Torode, said an allegation he used “racial language” was upheld in the report as part of a review.

After the report was published, Wallace, 60, said he was “deeply sorry” for causing any distress, and never set out to “harm or humiliate”.

Torode, 59, said he had “no recollection of the incident” and said he “did not believe that it happened,” and said he was “shocked and saddened by the allegation”.

Mr Davie said the BBC’s leadership team would not “tolerate behaviour that is not in line with our values,” while BBC chair Samir Shah acknowledged there were still pockets within the broadcaster where “powerful individuals” can still “make life for their colleagues unbearable”.

They said several BBC staff members had been dismissed in the last three months, following an independent review into workplace culture.

More on Bbc

Wallace, who was sacked from MasterChef last week, is not included in that count as he was not directly contracted by the corporation, but employed by independent production company Banijay.

The corporation has yet to decide if the unseen MasterChef series – filmed with both Wallace and Torode last year – will be aired or not.

BBC Broadcasting House in Portland Place, London. Pic: Jordan Pettitt/PA
Image:
BBC Broadcasting House in Portland Place, London. Pic: Jordan Pettitt/PA

News of the findings in the Gregg Wallace report came just hours before the BBC was deemed to have breached its editorial guidelines by failing to disclose that the child narrator of a Gaza documentary was the son of a Hamas official.

Media watchdog Ofcom subsequently launched its own investigation into the programme.

While the 2024-25 annual report showed a small rise in trust overall for the corporation, Mr Davie acknowledged it had been a year which saw the reputation of the BBC damaged by “serious failings” in the making of the documentary.

The BBC boss acknowledged: “It was important that the BBC took full responsibility for those failings and apologised for them,” and later in response to a question, called the documentary – Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone – “the most challenging editorial issue I’ve had to deal with”.

He went on: “The importance of fair balance reporting, the need for high-quality homegrown programming in the face of massive pressure, I think has never, ever been greater. And I believe my leadership and the team I’ve assembled can really help the BBC thrive in that environment and very competitive environment.”

BBC Director-General Tim Davie. Pic: PA
Image:
BBC Director-General Tim Davie. Pic: PA

BBC boss has chair’s ‘full support’

Despite a series of failings in recent months – including livestreaming the controversial Bob Vylan set at Glastonbury last month – Mr Davie insisted he can “lead” the organisation in the right direction.

When asked if he would resign, he replied: “I simply think I’m in a place where I can work to improve dramatically the BBC and lead it in the right way.

“We will make mistakes, but I think as a leadership and myself, I’ve been very clear, and I think we have been decisive.”

He said the organisation was setting a “global standard” for media.

Mr Shah, reiterated his support for Mr Davie.

“Tim Davie and his team, and Tim in particular, has shown very strong leadership throughout all this period and he has my full support.”

The report also revealed its top earners, which saw former Match Of The Day host Gary Lineker top the chart once again.

Meanwhile, Australian children’s cartoon Bluey proved a boon for the broadcaster, and was the most watched show in the US across all genres – with 55 billion minutes viewed.

The top 10 shows watched over Christmas 2024 were also all from the BBC.

Recent annual reviews have been overshadowed by the Huw Edwards scandal and allegations of a toxic environment around flagship show Strictly Come Dancing.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the latest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

Continue Reading

Trending