Tried being a QUEEN for a day 😘👑✨ Ming Dynasty Xiaoduan Empress 孝端皇后 Nine-Dragon Nine-Phoenix Crown is truly on another level—48.5 cm tall, inlaid with 115 uncut natural rubies and 4,414 pearls💎🐉A peak expression of Ming court aesthetics~😌✨ But the headband version isn’t bad either!😁🎀👑 #ICIF#

Conviction 2026 has officially been elevated to a National-Level Digital Assets & AI Forum, dedicated to redefining Vietnam’s position on the global economic map. This is more than just an event; it is a strategic cornerstone for building the next-generation International Financial Center (IFC). This digital-age financial hub will serve as the convergence point for smart capital flows and the world's most disruptive technologies, including AI and Blockchain. Conviction 2026 stands as a bold testament to a proactive and resilient Vietnam, ready to lead the digital asset wave in the region. Notably, the forum is honored to welcome the participation and guidance of Government Leadership, affirming a powerful commitment to propelling Vietnam firmly into a new era of national ascension. ⚖️ Backed by Prestigious National Authorities: - Executive Direction: Ho Chi Minh City People’s Committee. - Leadership: HCMC Department of Culture and Sports, in coordination with the HCMC Department of Science and Technology. - Policy Consultant: Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI). - Organizers: HCMC Electronic Communications Association (EIC) and HCMC Blockchain Association (HBA). - Host: Ninety Eight. 🚀 The gateway to the Vietnamese market is more open than ever. Do not miss your chance to stand alongside major financial institutions, policymakers, and the visionaries shaping Vietnam’s prosperous future. Register for Conviction 2026 today! __________________________ 👉 Secure your Early Bird tickets now to gain "invaluable" insights from our lineup of world-class speakers: Conviction 2026 - The Largest National Digital Assets & AI Event in Vietnam 📍 Location: Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam 📅 Date: August 14–15, 2026. 🌐 Stay updated on speakers & forum content at:

A new report about Halo: Campaign Evolved claims the remake relies heavily on outsourced development and includes major gameplay and mission changes. According to Halo insider Rebs Gaming, external studio Abstraction handled a large amount of the technical and level-design work. Some sources described the project as “not really an in-studio project” for Halo Studios. Reported changes include: • A major redesign of “The Library” to reduce repetitive gameplay. • Additional revisions to repetitive sections across other missions. • Modernized mechanics like sprinting and expanded traversal. • A “campaign remix” system featuring skull modifiers and alternate gameplay rules. • A reported third-person gameplay modifier. • Brutes appearing in missions where they were not present in the original Halo: Combat Evolved. • Nine extra weapons added to the sandbox, including the Energy Sword, Battle Rifle, SMG, Spiker, and Sentinel Beam. Official previews emphasized staying faithful to the tone and structure of the original game while modernizing gameplay in Unreal Engine 5. Source: @Mr_Rebs_

🚨CARDANO WHALES NOW CONTROL OVER 67% OF ALL ADA; HIGHEST SINCE 2020 Large Cardano holders now control 25.09 Billion cardano:native, or 67.47% of total supply, the highest concentration level since July 2020. The accumulation trend has continued since late 2023 even as ADA’s market cap reportedly fell 71% over the past nine months. Cardano’s onchain activity has weakened sharply, with DeFi TVL down 80% from its 2024 peak, daily DEX volume near $2M, and active addresses hovering around 16,000.

Yangzhou has taken another leap in its global outreach! The city has inaugurated its first batch of nine overseas service stations dedicated to supporting enterprises that are "going global". These stations have been launched in Vietnam, Thailand, Turkey, Indonesia, Germany, Hungary, the United States, Mexico, and Zimbabwe. The inauguration and awarding ceremony was held during the grand opening of the 2026 Yangzhou "Flowery March" International Economy, Trade and Tourism Festival on April 18. Aligned with Yangzhou's key industries, including equipment manufacturing, auto parts, next-generation information technology, and new materials, these service stations will deliver comprehensive support to empower Yangzhou companies in their overseas expansion efforts while advancing the city's high-level international openness and cooperation. @TC_PekinBE @KBRI_Beijing @USA_China_Talk @USAmbChina @GerAmbChina  @EmbaMexChn

I am a Senior Partner at a compensation advisory firm and I have spent eleven years helping boards understand that performance-based pay was never meant to measure performance. It was meant to measure justification. Those are different disciplines. When a board hires my firm, we build what I call "intent-aligned metric frameworks." The intent being: the CEO gets paid. The framework being: whatever math produces that outcome. We do not rig anything. We select. There are always forty metrics available. We recommend the six that, given current market conditions, will most reliably trigger a payout. If conditions change mid-year, we recommend adjustments. If the adjustments aren't enough, we recommend exclusions. If the exclusions aren't enough, we recommend a committee-level override with disclosure language we draft ourselves. We have never failed to pay a CEO. Eleven years. Four hundred and thirty-seven engagements. Not once. The CEO-to-worker compensation ratio is 290 to 1. In 1965 it was 21 to 1. That is not inflation. That is not productivity. That is my profession. We did that. My industry exists because of the gap between what a CEO produces and what a CEO receives, and our job is to ensure nobody measures the first number with any precision. CEO pay has risen 1,085% since 1978. Worker pay has risen 24%. Same economy. Same companies. Same tariffs hitting both. Different consultants. RTX brought us in last January, three months before Liberation Day, and the committee pre-authorized tariff exclusions at that very meeting. Before any tariff was announced. Before any financial impact was quantified. They were buying insurance against their CEO's compensation being affected by policy he couldn't control. Christopher Calio's bonus went up 85% to $5.1 million. His total comp hit $27.7 million. The board minutes use our language exactly: tariffs are "externally imposed, unpredictable and unrelated to operational execution." We workshopped that sentence for nine billable hours across two partners, three associates, and a forensic linguist we keep on retainer for proxy season. Nine hours to make a bonus look like an act of God. The forensic linguist is named Margaret. She has a PhD in rhetoric from Berkeley and a $340 hourly rate and her entire job is to ensure that proxy statements technically say what happened while functionally saying nothing at all. She taught me that the word "despite" is the most dangerous word in a compensation disclosure. "Despite missing targets, the CEO received..." — that sentence has triggered four shareholder lawsuits in the last two years. We never use "despite." We use "after adjusting for factors outside management's control." Same meaning. Zero lawsuits. Margaret earns her rate. Yeti was my favorite project this cycle. Their actual operating income came in $13.4 million below the threshold for any payout at all. Zero. Nothing. The CEO had failed by every metric the board selected twelve months earlier, metrics we recommended, metrics designed to be achievable. He missed all of them. So the board added $38 million in tariff costs back into the calculation and the bonus lifted 42.6%. Failed became exceptional with one line item. I keep the before-and-after spreadsheet in a leather portfolio my wife gave me for our anniversary, hand-stitched, Italian, $4,200 from the Brunello Cucinelli on Madison. Because it is the cleanest piece of governance work I have ever done. A number that meant "you did not earn this" became a number that meant "the world was unfair to you" with one adjustment. Like watching water run uphill because someone tilted the table and called it hydrology. Ross Stores did the same thing. Gap did the same thing. The pattern is so consistent we have a template now. I save it as "tariff_exclusion_framework_v3.docx" on our shared drive. Version one was from COVID. That was our proof of concept. In 2020 we helped nineteen companies exclude pandemic-related costs from executive compensation calculations while simultaneously using those same costs to justify freezing worker wages. Nobody audits both filings. The CEO's proxy statement lives in one database. The employee communications about frozen raises live in another. We verified this. The two documents contradict each other and they will never be read by the same person. That is not a flaw. It is a feature we designed for. Becton Dickinson raised their performance factor from 74% to 85%. Ten of the eleven percentage points came from our tariff methodology alone. Integra Life Sciences would have paid out nothing without our adjustment. Their board chair called our work "essential governance." We saved four executive careers that quarter. The factory workers at those same companies absorbed the tariff costs directly. Their grocery bills went up 22%. Their gas went up. Their bonuses did not exist in the first place. Nobody called us about their performance factors. Nobody has a performance factor. That is not a thing that exists for people who make $22 an hour. The concept was invented for people who make $22 million. Stock-based compensation now constitutes 77.6% of the average CEO's total package. That number is important because stock is not adjusted for tariffs. It does not need to be. Stock is adjusted by stock buybacks. The same companies paying us to exclude tariff costs from bonus calculations spent $1.1 trillion on buybacks last year. Buybacks inflate the stock price. The stock price determines the vesting value of the CEO's equity grants. The tariff exclusion protects the cash bonus. The buyback protects the equity. We protect the disclosure language. Three separate mechanisms, three separate consultants, one outcome: the number goes up. Always. Regardless. The worker's 401(k) holds 0.003% of the same stock and receives none of these protections. Nobody schedules a committee meeting about that. Of twenty-two companies we reviewed this cycle, eight protected executive compensation from tariff impact. Four did not even disclose the dollar amount to shareholders. One disclosed but used a footnote so dense it required a CPA to parse. I wrote that footnote. It references three cross-linked exhibits and uses the phrase "partially offsetting macro-economic headwinds" in a subordinate clause nested inside a parenthetical that itself modifies a defined term from page 47 of the proxy. The median adjustment was 13%. Our range ran from 6% to 43%, depending on how exposed the business was, how aggressive the committee felt, and how recently their last shareholder lawsuit had settled. We bill for this at $2,100 per hour per partner. The total advisory fees across our eight tariff clients this cycle ran just under $4 million. The total executive compensation we preserved ran just over $180 million. Our clients paid $4 million to keep $180 million. I present that ratio at our own firm's compensation committee meeting each December. We always laugh. Not at the math. At the fact that nobody has ever once described us as overpaid. Meanwhile the median worker at these same companies received a 3.1% raise this year. Cost of living rose 4.8%. Their real compensation declined. Ours preserved $180 million for twenty-two people. The math is beautiful in its honesty if you are willing to look at it from the correct altitude. Someone at a governance conference in March asked why we don't build the same adjustments for hourly workers whose grocery costs went up 22% from the same tariffs. I explained that workers don't have performance-based compensation, so there's nothing to adjust. The system is elegant in a way I genuinely admire. Executives have metrics tied to outcomes they cannot control, which gives us the flexibility to remove outcomes they cannot control. Workers have fixed wages tied to hours, which gives us nothing to work with. Even if we wanted to. Which we do not. Want to. I said this into a microphone in a ballroom at the Ritz-Carlton in Half Moon Bay and three hundred people nodded and nobody wrote it down. The valet outside was making $17 an hour plus tips. His grocery costs went up 22% from the same tariffs. He does not have a compensation committee. He has a shift schedule taped to the break room wall next to a poster that says "You Are Valued." There is a moment in every engagement when the committee asks us if the adjustments are "defensible." Not ethical. Not fair. Not proportionate. Defensible. The question contains its own answer. A thing is defensible if no one with standing challenges it and no court with jurisdiction examines it. Shareholders vote on compensation packages with approximately 3% participation rates for non-institutional holders. The institutions — Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street — vote in favor 94% of the time because their own executive compensation is structured identically and they do not set precedents against themselves. We have never lost a say-on-pay vote for a client. Not once. In eleven years. The system is not defended. It is unattacked. Those are different kinds of invulnerable. My youngest associate asked me last week whether we'd ever considered what would happen if workers unionized and demanded the same tariff adjustments we provide to executives. I told her the answer is on page 3 of every engagement letter we sign: "This advisory relationship pertains exclusively to Section 16 officers and board-designated executives." The exclusion is not implied. It is contractual. We could not help workers even if a board asked us to, because our retainer specifically prohibits it. We wrote it that way. In 2019. After a client's board member made a similar suggestion and our managing partner decided to foreclose the question permanently. The retainer language was reviewed by three attorneys. It took four hours. We billed for it. Ford absorbed two billion in tariff costs and did not touch executive pay. I sent their proxy filing to three clients as an example of what happens when you don't retain a compensation consultant. Two of them called back within the hour. The third called the next morning and asked if we could backdate the engagement letter to January. I said no. Margaret said yes, technically, with the right language. We backdated it. The fee was $180,000. The CEO's bonus was $14.2 million. I keep a running document of these ratios. Not for the clients. For myself. To remember what we are worth. To remember that the distance between failing and exceptional is always exactly one phone call to my office.

An interesting line in Politico’s coverage of the proposed AI executive order, which, at 16 pages, is also much longer than expected. This is still under discussion and not yet finalized, and everything I'm about to write is conjecture, but it appears the administration intends to regulate US open-weight models. Here are the reasons why this will almost certainly happen in some form. Open-weight models are currently about nine months behind the frontier. Once the big labs are subjected to pre-release screening, development itself will not slow down, but the release cadence will. At that point, open-weight development will quickly close the gap - much faster than nine months. When those models surpass the big labs, everyone will switch to using open-weight alternatives. From the administration’s perspective, allowing this option defeats the entire purpose of regulation. If the government is restricting and vetting models beyond a certain capability level, and people can simply switch to open-weight models that are just as capable - and eventually even more capable as the big labs slow down their release schedules under the new rules - then the situation becomes even worse from the government's perspective. They will not allow this to happen. Second, the big labs themselves have almost certainly been covertly lobbying for open-weight models to be included in any new regulations. Allowing the public to switch to a superior, free alternative would completely destroy their business models, potentially bankrupting them all. Given the enormous scale of current investment in these companies and in AI infrastructure, the broader economy would also suffer "significant disruption". That leaves China. If the two dynamics above play out, the same pattern repeats: everyone switches to Chinese open-weight models, which now quickly surpass both US closed and open releases. This produces the same consequences for the big labs, and causes the same issues with regulation. The government therefore has only two realistic options: ban Chinese models from use in the West, or negotiate a deal with Xi Jinping to impose identical regulation and pre-release vetting on open-weight models in China. The first option would mean China pulls ahead and wins the AI race. So the administration will almost certainly pursue the second. Negotiations are likely already underway, because the ideal outcome for the admin would be to announce that China has agreed to similar restrictions to what they are announcing, thereby blunting domestic backlash. China will know it has the US over a barrel and will insist on compromises. Compromises such as lifting all export controls on NVIDIA GPUs.

I am the Senior Director of Workforce Optimization at Cisco Systems and I want to share something I'm proud of. In August we identified 5,500 roles that were misaligned with our AI infrastructure pivot. I use the word "misaligned" because HR approved it. The previous word was "redundant" but redundant tested poorly in the internal communications focus group. Misaligned tested well. It suggests the employee did something wrong. That was important to us. The market gave us 4%. Honestly, I was disappointed. I told my team we need to think about this the way the Street thinks about it. The Street doesn't care that you removed 5,500 people. The Street cares that you removed 5,500 people *and* raised guidance in the same sentence. So that's what we did in Q3. We dissolved 4,000 additional roles and raised full-year guidance to $62.8 billion in the same paragraph of the same press release, and the stock surged 16% after hours. I was in the office watching. I keep a Bloomberg terminal on a second monitor for earnings nights. When the number moved I stood up at my desk. Nobody else was on the floor. It was 4:47 PM and the building was mostly empty, which I realize now is a thing I helped cause. Revenue hit $15.84 billion. Each of the 4,000 dissolved roles generated approximately $70,000 in market cap. I track this ratio quarterly. I built the spreadsheet myself. It has a tab called "Per-Head Value Creation" and another tab called "Projection Scenarios" where I model what happens to the stock if we do 5,000 next quarter, or 6,000, or 8,000. I have not shared the 8,000 tab with anyone yet. I'm waiting for the right meeting. Chuck said "focus, urgency, and discipline" on the earnings call. I helped draft that language. It took nine revisions. The first draft said "strategic headcount rationalization" and Legal flagged it because "rationalization" implies the prior headcount was irrational, which creates liability for two years of hiring decisions. So we workshopped alternatives. Someone suggested "realignment." Someone suggested "simplification." I suggested "focus" because focus is the only word in the English language that sounds like a strategy and a threat at the same time and no one can sue you for it. Our internal tracking system is called VELOCITY. It stands for Value Enhancement Through Labor Optimization and Cost Intelligent Transformation, Year-over-year. It took a naming committee four weeks to finalize the acronym. During those four weeks we separated 1,200 people. I mention this only because the naming committee had six members and none of them found this uncomfortable. I found it efficient. $5.3 billion in AI orders year-to-date. Raised to a $9 billion pipeline target. The CFO projects $6 billion in hyperscale AI revenue by FY2027. To get there the workforce needs to go from 86,200 to somewhere in the low 70s. I have a slide for this. The slide has two lines. One is headcount, going down. The other is AI order volume, going up. They cross somewhere around Q2 FY2026. I haven't titled the slide yet. My working title is "Alignment." I think that's clean. Networking orders up 50%. Data-center switching up 40%. Restructuring charges up to $1 billion. I put these three numbers on a single slide for the investor deck. An analyst from Morgan Stanley emailed afterward and said it was "elegant." I printed the email. It's in a frame on my desk next to the Operational Excellence in Transition Award from our internal leadership council. The trophy is a glass cube with nothing inside it. I've been told this was an aesthetic choice by the designer. I think it's the most honest object in my office. One of the 4,000 was a network engineer named David. Eleven years. He once drove from San Jose to Sacramento on a Saturday to physically restart a router that kept a hospital's ICU monitoring system online. I know this because it's in his performance file, which I reviewed as part of the Q3 separation list. His annual cost-to-company was $287,000. His departure improved our AI-readiness score by 0.003 points. I presented both numbers at my Thursday sync. Someone asked what the AI-readiness score was tracking toward. No one asked about the hospital. The DOW hit 50,000 the same day we filed the restructuring notice with the SEC. I watched it on the terminal. I took a photo and sent it to my wife. She said "that's great." I wrote back explaining how our filing contributed to the broader rally and that the index was essentially agreeing with my Q3 plan. She didn't respond. I reread my message later and realized it was four paragraphs long. I think maybe I should have just said "good day at work." We are entering Phase 3 planning for FY2026. VELOCITY has flagged another 6-8% of the workforce as what we internally call "the drag layer." These are roles that generate labor costs without contributing to the AI order pipeline. I have a preliminary separation model ready. The Slack channel for this work is called #restructuring-wins#. It requires VP-level approval to join. We use a custom emoji for milestones. It's a green arrow pointing up. Someone on my team designed it. I approved it. I didn't think about it very hard at the time and I still don't. I received a 22% performance bonus this quarter. The category on my review was "Demonstrates Focus." My skip-level told me it was the highest in the division. He shook my hand. I went back to my desk and saw that David's severance had been processed that morning. I noted the date. I did not note the coincidence. I don't think it was one. I think these are just two outputs of the same system, running correctly, at the same time. I have a meeting Tuesday to review the Phase 3 list. The deck is formatted. The projections are loaded. I'm going to recommend we accelerate the timeline by one quarter. I think the Street will respond well. I think Chuck will say "focus." I think my phone will buzz. I'm proud of the work we're doing here.