Connect with us

Published

on

Scooters take over SXSW in Austin, TX

As the last decade came to an end, it was easy for a young engineer to hop on a Bird scooter and ride it to a nearby WeWork office, home to the hottest new crypto startup.

Then came Covid. Electric scooters and coworking spaces were no longer important, but there was a sudden need for tools to enable remote collaboration. Money started flowing into entertainment and education apps that consumers could tap while in lockdown. And while trading crypto.

In both periods, money was cheap and plentiful. The Federal Reserve’s near-zero interest rate policy had been in effect since after the 2008 financial crisis, and Covid stimulus efforts added fuel to the fire, incentivizing investors to take risks, betting on the next big innovation. And crypto.

This year, it all unwound. With the Fed lifting its benchmark rate to the highest in 22 years and persistent inflation leading consumers to pull back and businesses to focus on efficiency, the cheap money bubble burst. Venture investors continued retreating from record levels of financing reached in 2021, forcing cash-burning startups to straighten out or go bust. For many companies, there was no workable solution.

WeWork and Bird filed for bankruptcy. High-valued Covid plays like videoconferencing startup Hopin and social audio company Clubhouse faded into oblivion. And crypto entrepreneur Sam Bankman-Fried, founder of failed crypto exchange FTX, was convicted of fraud charges that could put him behind bars for life.

Last week, Trevor Milton, founder of automaker Nikola, was sentenced to four years in prison for fraud. His company had raised bundles of cash and rocketed past a $30 billion valuation on the promise of bringing hydrogen-powered vehicles to the mass market. December also saw the demise of Hyperloop One, which reeled in hundreds of millions of dollars to build tubular transportation that would shoot passengers and cargo at airline speeds in low-pressure environments.

There is surely more pain to come in 2024, as cash continues to dry up for unsustainable businesses. But venture capitalists like Jeff Richards of GGV Capital see an end in sight, recognizing that the zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) days are squarely in the past and good companies are performing.

“Prediction: 2024 is the year we finally bury the class of ’21 ZIRP ‘unicorns’ and start talking about a new crop of great companies,” Richards wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter, on Dec. 25. “Never overvalued, well run, consistently strong growth and great cultures. IPO class of ’25 coming your way.” He concluded with two emojis — one of a smiling face and the other of crossed fingers.

The 'Magnificent Seven' has more fuel in the tank for 2024, says Morgan Stanley's Andrew Slimmon

Investors are clearly excited about tech. Following a 33% plunge in 2022, the Nasdaq Composite has jumped 44% this year as of Wednesday’s close, putting the tech-heavy index on pace to close out its strongest year since 2003, which marked the rebound from the dot-com bust.

Chipmaker Nvidia more than tripled in value this year as cloud companies and artificial intelligence startups snapped up the company’s processors needed to train and run advanced AI models. Facebook parent Meta jumped almost 200%, bouncing back from a brutal 2022, thanks to hefty cost cuts and its own investments in AI.

The 2023 washout occurred in parts of the tech economy where profits were never part of the equation. In hindsight, the reckoning was predictable.

Between 2004 and 2008, venture investments in the U.S. averaged around $30 billion annually, according to data from the National Venture Capital Association. When the Fed pulled rates close to zero, big money managers lost the opportunity to get returns in fixed income, and technology drove massive growth in the global economy and a sustained bull market in equities.

Investors, hungry for yield, poured into the riskiest areas of tech. From 2015 to 2019, VCs invested an average of $111.2 billion annually in the U.S., setting records almost every year. The mania reached a zenith in 2021, when VCs plunged more than $345 billion into tech startups — more than the total amount they invested between 2004 and 2011.

Too much money, not enough profit

WeWork’s spiral into bankruptcy was a long time in the making. The provider of coworking space raised billions from SoftBank at a peak valuation of $47 billion but was blasted when it first tried to go public in 2019. Investors balked at the more than $900 million in losses the company had racked up in the first half of the year and were skeptical of related-party transactions involving CEO Adam Neumann.

WeWork ultimately debuted — without Neumann, who stepped down in September 2019 — via a special purpose acquisition company in 2021. Yet a combination of rising interest rates and sluggish return-to-office trends depressed WeWork’s financials and stock price.

Adam Neumann of WeWork and Victor Fung Kwok-king, right, chairman of Fung Group, attend a signing ceremony at WeWork’s Weihai Road location on April 12, 2018 in Shanghai, China.

Jackal Pan | Visual China Group | Getty Images

In August, WeWork said in a securities filing that there was a “going concern” about its ability to remain viable, and in November the company filed for bankruptcy. CEO David Tolley has laid out a plan to exit many of the expensive leases signed in WeWork’s heyday.

Bird’s path to bankruptcy followed a similar trajectory, though the scooter company maxed out at a much lower private market valuation of $2.5 billion. Founded by former Uber exec Travis VanderZanden, Bird went public through a SPAC in November 2021, and quickly fell below its initial price

Far from its meteoric growth days of 2018, when it announced it had reached 10 million rides in a year, Bird’s model fell apart when investors stopped pumping in cash to subsidize cheap trips for consumers.

In September, the company was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange and began to trade over the counter. Bird filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection earlier this month and said it will use the bankruptcy proceeding to facilitate a sale of its assets, which it expects to complete within the next 90 to 120 days.

While the onset of the Covid pandemic in 2020 was a shock to businesses like WeWork and Bird, a whole new class of companies flourished — for a short time at least. Alongside the booming stock prices for Zoom, Netflix and Peloton, startup investors wanted in on the action.

Virtual event planning platform Hopin, founded in 2019, saw its valuation increase from $1.5 billion in December 2020 to $7.75 billion by August 2021. Meanwhile, Andreessen Horowitz touted Clubhouse as the go-to app for hosting virtual sessions featuring celebrities and influencers, a novel idea when nobody was getting together in person. The firm led an investment in Clubhouse at a $4 billion valuation in the early part of 2021.

But Clubhouse never turned into a business. User growth plateaued quickly. In April 2023, Clubhouse said it was laying off half its staff in order to “reset” the company.

“As the world has opened up post-Covid, it’s become harder for many people to find their friends on Clubhouse and to fit long conversations into their daily lives,” co-founders Paul Davison and Rohan Seth wrote in a blog post.

Hopin was equally dependent on people remaining at home attached to their devices. Hopin founder Johnny Boufarhat told CNBC in mid-2021 that the company would go public in two to four years. Instead, its events and engagement businesses were swallowed up by RingCentral in August for up to $50 million.

For some of the latest high-profile failures, the problems stemmed from the tech industry’s blind faith in the innovative founder.

FTX collapsed almost overnight in late 2022 as customers of the crypto exchange demanded withdrawals, which were unavailable because of how Bankman-Fried was using their money. Bankman-Fried’s white knight veneer had gone largely unscrutinized, because big-name investors like Sequoia Capital, Insight Partners and Tiger Global pumped in money without getting any sort of board presence in return.

Nikola’s Milton had dazzled investors and the press, taking on an ambitious effort to transform how cars run in a way that other automakers had tried and failed to do in the past. In June 2020, three years after its founding, the company went public via a SPAC.

Three months after its public market debut, Nikola announced a strategic partnership with General Motors that valued the company at more than $18 billion, which was well below its peak in June.

Within days of the GM deal, short seller firm Hindenburg Research released a scathing report, declaring that Milton was spouting an “ocean of lies.”

“We have never seen this level of deception at a public company, especially of this size,” Hindenburg wrote.

Milton resigned 10 days after the report, by which time concurrent Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission probes were underway. Nikola settled with the SEC in December 2021. A week before Christmas of this year, Milton was sentenced to prison for fraud.

Virgin Hyperloop One built the world’s first working, full-sized hyperloop test in Nevada. It ran last year for a little less than a third of a mile, and accelerated a 28-foot pod to 192 miles per hour in a few seconds.

Source: Virgin Hyperloop

‘Growing from lessons learned’

Hyperloop One is another far-out idea that never made it to fruition.

The company, originally called Virgin Hyperloop, raised more than $450 million from its inception in 2014 until its closure this month. Investors included Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Group, Russia’s sovereign wealth fund and Khosla Ventures.

But Hyperloop One was unable to secure contracts that could take it beyond a test site in Las Vegas, adding to years of struggles that involved allegations of executive misconduct. Bloomberg reported the company is selling off assets and laying off the remaining staff members.

Even for the segments of emerging technology that are still flourishing, the capital markets are challenging outside of AI. Hardly any tech companies have gone public in the past two years following record years in 2020 and 2021.

The few tech IPOs that took place this year stirred up little enthusiasm. Grocery delivery company Instacart went public in September at $42 a share after dramatically slashing its valuation. The stock has since lost more than 40% of its value, closing Wednesday at $23.93.

Masayoshi Son’s SoftBank, which was the principal investor in WeWork and a number of other companies that failed in the past couple years, took chip designer Arm Holdings public in September at a $60 billion valuation. The offering provided some much-needed liquidity for SoftBank, which had acquired Arm for $32 billion in 2016. 

Arm has done better than Instacart, with its stock climbing 46% since the initial public offering to close at $74.25 on Wednesday.

Many bankers and tech investors are pointing to the second half of 2024 as the earliest opportunity for the IPO window to reopen in a significant way. By that point, companies will have had more than two years to adapt to a changed environment for tech businesses, with a focus on profit above growth, and may also get a boost from expected Fed rate cuts in the new year.

For some founders, the market never closed. After exiting WeWork, where he’d been propped up by billions of dollars in SoftBank cash in a decision that Son later called “foolish,” Adam Neumann is back at it. He raised $350 million last year from Andreesen Horowitz to launch a company called Flow, which says it wants to create a “superior living environment” by acquiring multifamily properties across the U.S.

Neumann’s WeWork experience isn’t proving to be a liability. Rather, it drove Andreessen’s investment.

“We understand how difficult it is to build something like this,” Andreessen wrote in a blog post about the deal. “And we love seeing repeat-founders build on past successes by growing from lessons learned.”

WATCH: WeWork’s end, Neumann’s return?

WeWork's end, Neumann's return? Who's left holding the bag, and what comes next

Continue Reading

Technology

Britain seeks to build homegrown rival to OpenAI in bid to become world leader in artificial intelligence

Published

on

By

Britain seeks to build homegrown rival to OpenAI in bid to become world leader in artificial intelligence

Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer gives a media interview while attending the 79th United Nations General Assembly at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, U.S. September 25, 2024.

Leon Neal | Via Reuters

LONDON — The U.K is looking to build a homegrown challenger to OpenAI and drastically increase national computing infrastructure, as Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government sets its sights on becoming a global leader in artificial intelligence.

Starmer is set to visit Bristol, England, on Monday to announce the pledge, which follows work done by British tech investor Matt Clifford to establish an “AI Opportunities Action Plan.” The plan aims to help the U.K. take advantage of the potential of AI.

The government is primarily seeking to expand data center capacity across the U.K. to boost developers of powerful AI models which rely on high-performance computing equipment hosted in remote locations to train and run their systems.

A target of increasing “sovereign,” or public sector, compute capacity in the U.K. by twentyfold by 2030 has been set. As part of that pledge, the government will begin opening access to the AI Research Resource, an initiative aimed at bolstering U.K. computing infrastructure.

Starmer’s administration last year canceled £1.3 billion of taxpayer-funded spending commitments towards two significant computing initiatives in order to prioritize other fiscal plans. The projects, an AI Research Resource and a next-generation “exascale” supercomputer, were pledges were made under Starmer’s predecessor, Rishi Sunak.

Sovereign AI has become a hot topic for policymakers, particularly in Europe. The term refers to the idea that technologies critical to economic growth and national security should be built and developed in the countries people are adopting them in.

To further bolster Britain’s computing infrastructure, the government also committed to setting up several AI “growth zones,” where rules on planning permission will be relaxed in certain places to allow for the creation of new data centers.

Meanwhile, an “AI Energy Council” formed of industry leaders from both energy and AI will be set up to explore the role of renewable and low-carbon sources of energy, like nuclear.

Why Amazon, Microsoft, Google and Meta are investing in nuclear power

Building a challenger to OpenAI

The last major initiative the U.K. government proposed was to create homegrown AI “champions” of a similar scale to American tech giants responsible for the foundational AI models that power today’s generative AI tools such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

Britain plans to use the AI growth zones and a newly established National Data Library to connect public institutions — such as universities — to enhance the country’s ability to create “sovereign” AI models which aren’t reliant on Silicon Valley.

It’s worth highlighting that the U.K. faces serious challenges in its bid to create an effective OpenAI alternative. For one, several entrepreneurs in the country have bemoaned funding challenges that make it difficult for startups in the country to raise the kind of cash available to AI success stories.

Many U.K. founders and venture capitalists have called for the country’s pension funds to allocate a greater portion of their portfolios toward riskier, growth-focused startups — a reform the government has committed to pushing previously.

“In the U.K., there’s $7 trillion in this pocket,” Magnus Grimeland, CEO and founder of venture capital firm Antler, told CNBC in an interview last year. “Imagine if you take just 5% of that and allocate it to innovation — you solve the problem.”

U.K. tech leaders have nevertheless generally praised the government’s AI action plan. Zahra Bahrololoumi, Salesforce’s U.K. boss, told CNBC the plan is a “forward-thinking strategy,” adding she’s encouraged by the government’s “bold vision for AI and emphasis on transparency, safety and collaboration.”

Chintan Patel, Cisco’s chief technology officer in the U.K., said he’s “encouraged” by the action plan. “Having a clearly defined roadmap is critical for the UK to achieve its ambition to become an AI superpower and a leading destination for AI investment,” he said.

Britain doesn’t yet have formal regulations for AI. Starmer’s government has previously said it plans to draw up legislation for AI — but details remain thin.

Last month, the government announced a consultation on measures to regulate the use of copyrighted content to train AI models.

More generally, the U.K. is pitching a differentiated regulatory regime from the EU following Brexit as a positive factor — meaning, it can introduce regulatory oversight for AI but in a way that’s less strict than the EU, which has taken a more hard-line approach to regulating the technology with its AI Act.

Continue Reading

Technology

What to expect from new crypto legislation on the crime prevention side of it

Published

on

By

What to expect from new crypto legislation on the crime prevention side of it

Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump gestures at the Bitcoin 2024 event in Nashville, Tennessee, U.S., July 27, 2024.

Kevin Wurm | Reuters

With the levers of power in Washington, D.C., about to change hands, a raft of pro-crypto legislation is expected from Congress and the Trump administration. To date, there’s been less focus on the cybersecurity side of the political effort, which could be an issue for crypto in relation to its popularity among a wary U.S. population. 

Cryptocurrency, which includes not just bitcoin but ethereum, dogecoin, and others, has a faithful following among American adults. According to the Pew Research Center, 17% of American adults have traded in crypto, but that market share of American wallets has remained virtually unchanged since 2021. Meanwhile, according to a poll Pew conducted shortly before the election, 63% of adults say they have little to no confidence in crypto investing or trading, and don’t think cryptocurrencies are reliable and safe. 

The incoming Trump administration has been touting its crypto bona fides, with a focus on the industry rather than the consumer.

“The No. 1 most important priority for the industry is to make sure they have a regulatory framework so that they can do business,” said Dusty Johnson (R-South Dakota), who helped author the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act (FIT21) that addresses the treatment of digital assets under U.S. law. The law passed in the House with bipartisan support but has not been taken up by the Senate.

FIT21 did contain specific crypto-cybersecurity provisions, which Johnson predicts will be built upon in the new administration.

Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-Pennsylvania), Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture and a co-author of FIT21, says the cybersecurity provisions in the bill are still key in the upcoming administration.

“FIT21 requires important cybersecurity safeguards for financial intermediaries engaging with digital assets,” Thompson said in a statement to CNBC, adding that FIT21 includes explicit provisions to ensure that regulated firms take steps to evaluate and mitigate cyber vulnerabilities to protect both the services they offer and assets they hold on behalf of their customers.

“These cybersecurity requirements are critical for protecting digital asset markets and market participants,” Thompson said.

Rep. French Hill on crypto: We need a market structure for digital assets

Some experts, however, doubt that there will be as much action on the security side of the legislation, given that crypto proponents are closely advising the Trump administration.

“Personnel is policy,” says Jeff Le, vice president of global government affairs and public policy at Security Scorecard and a former assistant cabinet secretary in the California governor’s office. The top ranks of the incoming economic team, made up of SEC Chair-designate Paul Atkins, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and Treasury Secretary-designate Scott Bessent, “have had a track record of supporting cryptocurrencies,” Le said.

Among other major posts in his second administration, President-elect Trump has appointed venture capital investor David Sacks to be his AI and crypto “czar.”

Crypto industry’s role in political realignment

The crypto industry donated significant sums to the 2024 election cycle, contributions that were not limited to the GOP, but focused more broadly on lawmakers with an industry-friendly view of crypto regulation. It’s likely that will continue to influence political calculations. The pro-crypto and bipartisan super PAC Fairshake and its affiliates have already raised over $100 million for the 2026 midterm elections, including commitments from Coinbase and Silicon Valley venture fund Andreessen Horowitz, an early backer of Coinbase. Top Andreessen Horowitz executives have been tapped for roles in the Trump administration.

“We have the most pro-crypto Congress ever [in] history, we have an extraordinarily pro-crypto president coming into office,” Faryar Shirzad, chief policy officer at Coinbase, recently told CNBC.

“It is rare to see cryptocurrency proponents advocate for increased regulation in the space, regardless of reason,” said Jason Baker, senior threat intelligence consultant at GuidePoint Security.

Baker says the anonymity and independence of cryptocurrency are often cited as primary benefits that legislation would curtail, and cryptocurrency’s decentralized nature makes it hard to regulate in a traditional sense.

“Given current signaling from the incoming administration and the interests of cryptocurrency proponents influential to the administration, we do not anticipate significant advances in cryptocurrency regulation within the next four years,” Baker said.

If there isn’t much action on regulation, there are some obvious ramifications for cybersecurity, he said, driven by the correlation between a pro-crypto Washington, D.C., and bullish bets by investors on digital assets.

“Cybercrime is often driven by benefits from increasing cryptocurrency value. In ransomware, for example, ransoms are commonly demanded in USD, but payments are made most frequently in bitcoin. When the value of bitcoin increases, cybercriminals will benefit,” Baker said.

Stock Chart IconStock chart icon

hide content

The value of bitcoin has risen significantly over the past three months in what has been a risk-on market environment.

“Future de-emphasis on cryptocurrency regulation may positively signal that cybercrime operations in bitcoin remain viable and unlikely to suffer government disruption to operators in the space,” Baker said.

Cybercriminals have also been changing tactics to evade legislation and scrutiny, Baker added, switching to more under-the-radar cryptocurrencies like Monero.

Ransomware’s potential role in Congressional action

Baker predicts regulation centered on organizations issuing cryptocurrency payments — whether in the form of a ransom payment or for other purposes — is more likely achievable and palatable in the current regulatory environment.

“This could include, for example, increased requirements for reporting ransom payments when made, a policy which has been floated without gaining substantial traction in recent years,” Baker said. This approach can be argued as regulating end users and purposes rather than the underlying cryptocurrency itself.

In addition to ransomware payments to restore access to technology systems, there are other reasons why payment in cryptocurrency is common in digital extortion schemes, including to protect the identity and operational security of the criminal. Private organizations may also opt to use crypto to purchase leaked data or credentials which have been made available on illicit forums.

There could also be situations where private individuals attempt to report and receive payment for discovered vulnerabilities under a “bug bounty” program — whether voluntary or coerced (so-called “beg bounty”). They may request payment in cryptocurrency out of personal preference or general desire for privacy, and private organizations may or may not oblige.

“While there are doubtless other options for organizations to use cryptocurrency in some form, these are the primary forms we see on a regular or more frequent basis,” Baker said. “Though such actions would almost certainly have downstream impacts on cryptocurrency value by virtue of their impact on transaction volume,” Baker added.

Steve McNew, global leader of blockchain and digital assets at FTI Consulting, thinks some cyber-crypto legislation may happen, especially governing when a company victimized by a ransomware pays their attackers in cryptocurrency.

“There’s more than just public policy at issue,” said McNew. If a company has been compromised in a cyberattack and is required to make public disclosure of the ransoms it paid out, it can result in the company becoming a bigger future target for other criminal enterprises, McNew said. While it might make sense, on one hand, to provide disclosure as to where funds are going and what cryptocurrencies were used in a payment, doing so can put the company (and by extension its customers, employees and partners) in harm’s way.

“So, any policy decisions around cryptocurrency disclosures in this context will require balancing the need for transparency around the use of cryptocurrency in criminal matters alongside the risks such transparency might exacerbate,” McNew says.

Though FIT21 passed the House with broad bipartisan support, it did not address these issues specifically.

Le expects some legislation action that may attempt to address this topic. “The next Congress could see more traction for proposed legislation like Cryptocurrency Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2022, which allows companies to share information regarding cybersecurity threats with the federal government and with one another,” he said.

Le said Congress may also revisit the work of outgoing Financial Services Chair Patrick McHenry (R-North Carolina) and Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-Colorado) and the Ransomware and Financial Stability Act of 2024, which aimed at “strengthening the resilience of the U.S. financial system against ransomware attacks, establishing clear protocols for ransom payments, and ensuring that such payments, including those involving cryptocurrencies, are made within a controlled and legally compliant framework.”

But he added that it is unclear if the Trump administration will continue the Biden administration’s leadership role in the International Counter Ransomware Initiative, a 68-country coalition aimed at preventing the payments of ransomware.

The broader bitcoin governance battle

McNew says that many basic parameters surrounding crypto, even down to its definition, could hamstring legislation, even aspects of it intended to foster innovation and adoption of the industry.

“U.S. lawmakers have work to do in determining roles, responsibilities, and basic parameters for how the industry will be governed before any meaningful legislation can take hold,” McNew said. As an example,  establishing a designated authority for digital assets is an imperative that has yet to be addressed.

Basic governance structure was a major sticking point during the Biden administration, and a primary reason Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler was a thorn in the side of the crypto industry.

“Lawmakers must decide whether responsibility will fall under the SEC, the CFTC, or another body. Issues around taxation and broker-dealer definitions for digital assets markets will also need to be defined and provided with a set of clear rules for legislation to be effective,” McNew said, adding that given how closely divided the House will be in the next session, it may be tough to craft an agreement. 

Continue Reading

Technology

Ahead of looming ban, TikTok creators ask fans to find them on Instagram or YouTube

Published

on

By

Ahead of looming ban, TikTok creators ask fans to find them on Instagram or YouTube

Jakub Porzycki | Nurphoto | Getty Images

Before Jack Nader started posting beauty videos on TikTok in 2023, he was working as a Starbucks barista in Chicago and living at home with his parents. 

But after Nader, who’s now 21, started taking his videos seriously in April of that year, his TikTok account blew up. With more than half a million followers, he was able to generate enough income through brand sponsorships and his share of ad revenue that he quit his coffee shop gig and got his own apartment. 

“This is my 9-to-5 job,” Nader, who said he makes between $1,000 and $12,000 per month as a creator, told CNBC. “This is what I do to make a living. This is how I pay for my groceries. This is how millions of small businesses make their money.”

Nader’s new reality, however, is far from stable. TikTok, which is owned by China’s ByteDance, is nearing a Jan. 19 deadline by which it has to be sold, or it faces a ban in the U.S. Like many other creators who have come to rely on TikTok, Nader has been urging his fans to find him on other social media apps before he potentially loses them altogether and the substantial income stream that they represent.

“Not everyone from my TikTok following is going to come over, and that’s really sad,” Nader said. 

The TikTok risk has been present for years, but was amped up in April, after President Joe Biden signed a law that requires ByteDance to divest the short-form video app this month. If ByteDance fails to sell TikTok in time, Apple and Google will be forced by law to ensure their platforms no longer support the app in the U.S.

President-elect Donald Trump, who favored a TikTok ban during his first administration, has since flip-flopped on the matter. Late last month, he urged the Supreme Court to intervene and forcibly delay implementation of Biden’s ban to give him time to find a “political resolution.” His inauguration is Jan. 20.

Trump’s rhetoric on TikTok began to turn after he met in February with billionaire Jeff Yass, a Republican megadonor and a major investor in ByteDance who also owns a stake in the owner of Truth Social, Trump’s social media company.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments from both sides on Jan. 10. During the more than two-hour session, justices peppered TikTok’s head lawyer with questions about the app’s ties to China and appeared generally unconvinced by TikTok’s main argument, that the law violates the free speech rights of its millions of individual users in the U.S.

On Thursday, businessman Frank McCourt’s internet advocacy group Project Liberty announced it had submitted a proposal to buy TikTok from ByteDance. Calling it, “The People’s Bid for TikTok,” the group said it would restructure the app to exist on an American-owned platform and prioritize users’ digital safety, though it didn’t disclose terms of its bid.

Jack Nader, 21 of Chicago, is a full-time TikTok creator who has begun moving his content from the Chinese-owned app onto Meta’s Instagram Reels and Alphabet’s YouTube Shorts.

Courtesy of Jack Nader

A ruling could come at an point. Nader isn’t waiting for a resolution to figure out what’s next.

He’s currently downloading four or five of his TikTok videos each day to save them as he migrates his content to Meta’s Instagram Reels and Alphabet’s YouTube Shorts. After downloading the videos, Nader re-edits them, optimizing the clips for each app. 

“It took me over a year and a half to build the following that I have right now on TikTok to make it my full time job,” Nader said. “Now it’s kind of about rebuilding that entire brand on another platform, which is not ideal.”

Nader said he isn’t yet making any money from Reels or Shorts.

‘This isn’t just a silly app’

Danisha Carter, 27 of Los Angeles, is a full-time TikTok creator who has begun ending her videos by asking her fans to follow her on YouTube, Instagram and Patreon before the Jan. 19 law banning the Chinese-owned app takes effect.

Courtesy of Danisha Carter

TikTok could still find a way to stay operational in the U.S., but if the app does get suspended, YouTube, Facebook and Instagram are poised to be the biggest winners in the fallout, experts predict.

TikTok has about 115 million monthly active users in the U.S., well behind YouTube at 258 million and Facebook at 253 million, according to market intelligence firm Sensor Tower. Instagram has 131 million. Short videos, the kind that mimic clips on TikTok, are gaining viewership across those apps, accounting for about 41% of user time on Instagram, Sensor Tower data shows.

While TikTok has a smaller userbase in the U.S. and lower share of total ad dollars than its top rivals, it’s the dominant platform for creators, particularly those focused on short-form content.

Influencer marketing platform HyperAuditor defines a creator as a user with over 1,000 subscribers. TikTok has nearly 8.5 million people in the U.S. who fit that category, compared with about 5.2 million on Instagram and 1.1 million on YouTube, according to HyperAuditor.

Meanwhile, TikTok accounts for 9% of digital ad spend on social media platforms in the U.S., according to Sensor Tower, compared to 31% for Facebook, 25% for Instagram and 21% for YouTube.

Should TikTok go away, “this equates to billions of dollars potentially up in the air for competitors to seize,” Sensor Tower told CNBC in an email. Emarketer estimates that Meta and YouTube could grab about half of the reallocated dollars should a ban go into effect.

That type of market shift has taken place elsewhere. India banned TikTok in June 2020, when the app had about 150 million monthly users in the country. A year later, Instagram’s monthly active users in India had increased by 20% while YouTube’s had gone up 11% year-over-year, according to Sensor Tower estimates. 

“That’s when we saw the biggest jump in Reels utilization ever,” said Meghana Dhar, a former Instagram executive who was at the company at the time of the India ban. “Should TikTok get banned and creators have to scramble, between YouTube Shorts and Instagram, a lot of creators are already hedging their bets.”

At Meta, leaders within Instagram scheduled numerous impromptu meetings on Friday after listening to the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, a person familiar with the matter told CNBC. Though many within the company had long expected TikTok would remain active in the U.S., leaders at Instagram began directing their teams to prepare for a potential influx of users should the ban go through, said the person, who asked not to be named due to confidentiality.

(L-R) Sarah Baus of Charleston, S.C., holds a sign that reads “Keep TikTok” as she and other content creators Sallye Miley of Jackson, Mississippi, and Callie Goodwin of Columbia, S.C., stand outside the U.S. Supreme Court Building as the court hears oral arguments on whether to overturn or delay a law that could lead to a ban of TikTok in the U.S., on January 10, 2025 in Washington, DC. 

Andrew Harnik | Getty Images

Need to diversify

After working on a horse farm, Nealie Boschma, 27, was able to move to Los Angeles and live full-time as a creator after starting to post videos to TikTok in 2022.

Courtesy of Nealie Boschma

Even with multiple other options for finding large audiences, creators are worried about trying to rebuild their business and whether enough followers will migrate with them.

“Whatever is going to happen is going to happen, and we’re just going to make the most of it,” said Nealie Boschma, 27 of Los Angeles, who has been living as a full-time creator since 2022. “That’s just how I have to look at it, so I don’t panic.”

Despite the potential upheaval, Boschma, said she views the potential ban as an opportunity to expand her career and get more creative. 

Boschma started making TikTok videos after quitting her job working on a horse farm, choosing to live off of her savings while experimenting as a creator. Boschma’s bet on herself worked and she’s earned enough to live in Los Angeles, paying for her own place and a car.

Now she’s making sure her TikTok fans see the links to her other profiles so they can find her on other apps, including YouTube. If the ban goes through, Boschma said she plans to make a video specifically asking her fans to follow her elsewhere.

It’s going to be quite a lift, as she currently has 2 million TikTok followers compared to just 278,000 on YouTube. But Boschma said she is going to try her hand at making longer-form videos, something she’s always wanted to explore. 

“Whether TikTok goes away or not, I do think something will work out” Boschma said. “I’ll find my footing in other places, like I did on TikTok.”

WATCH: Supreme Court likely to uphold TikTok ban, says Christoff & Co. CEO Niki Christoff

Supreme Court likely to uphold TikTok ban, says Christoff & Co. CEO Niki Christoff

Continue Reading

Trending