Tron (TRX) founder Justin Sun, who is close to US President Donald Trump and is one of the biggest investors in the TRUMP token, and his team have made a new move.
Tron DAO announced it has expanded its AI and stablecoin funding to $1 billion.
Tron DAO announced in a post from its X account that it has increased its AI and cryptocurrency fund, which it first launched in 2023, from $100 million to $1 billion.
According to the announcement, the fund will invest in four areas: “1) AI agent identity projects, 2) Stablecoin-based payment projects, 3) Tokenization of real-world assets (RWA), and 4) Developer tools for autonomous financial systems.”
“TRON announced it is increasing its AI funding from $100 million to $1 billion. The fund will aim to invest in and acquire early-stage companies that are building the foundational infrastructure for an agent-based economy.”
The expanded fund, now at $1 billion, will focus on investing in projects that use artificial intelligence to improve blockchain scalability, security, and user experience. TRON’s initiative reflects the growing trend of leveraging AI capabilities within the crypto industry and demonstrates its ambition to be a leader in this field.
Tron is also just one of many cryptocurrency-based ecosystems aiming to invest in AI and target an agent-based payment economy, while Solana and Base are also taking steps to expand into this space.
Tron founder Justin Sun had previously stated in an interview that many use cases for AI agents involve small and frequent operations, and that these “require fast and inexpensive networks.”
Ohio man buys lottery ticket for wrong drawing, wins $50,000
Feb. 20 (UPI) — An Ohio man attempting to play Mega Millions accidentally bought a ticket for the wrong lottery drawing — and ended up winning a $50,000 prize.
Before E. T. the Extra-Terrestrial became the most beloved alien movie ever made — before it dethroned Star Wars at the box office, before kids everywhere pointed glowing fingers at each other in suburban backyards — Henry Thomas thought he’d already lost the part.
“I felt like I had done the worst job possible,” Thomas says on The Hollywood Reporter’s It Happened in Hollywoodpodcast. “I thought I blew it the minute I opened my mouth.”
What happened next is now the stuff of Hollywood legend. Steven Spielberg, unsatisfied with the scripted read, pivoted. Forget the sides, he said. He gave the 10-year-old actor a scenario: Your best friend is being taken away. And so Thomas didn’t act — he remembered.
He thought about his dog — killed by a neighbor’s dog in front of him as a child — and collapsed into something raw enough to make Spielberg cry. “That’s what you see,” he says now. “I just plugged into that.” Spielberg didn’t hesitate: “OK, kid, you got the job,” he said, casting Thomas as Elliott, the suburban child hero of the film.
The performance that followed would define a generation. But at the time, almost no one — not even the — believed E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial would be a hit.
“It was kind of like, ‘Go off and do this little movie,’” Thomas recalls. The prevailing wisdom, shaped by Alien, was that audiences wanted monsters, not something gentle and homesick. “They assumed the mean alien would do better,” Thomas explains, referring to John Carpenter’s much-anticipated The Thing, released two weeks after E.T. on June 25, 1982.
The Thing would flop — though go no to become a much-admired classic. But E.T. made $793 million — $2.5 billion in today’s dollars — enough to dethrone Star Wars, then the box office record holder with $775 million in ticket sales.
The film clicked with audiences young and old because Spielberg made a film about loneliness, childhood and loss — and built its emotional core on a child who didn’t even think the script sounded exciting. “No lightsabers, no space battles,” Thomas remembers thinking. “My 10-year-old brain was like, ‘This doesn’t seem that exciting.’”
On set, Spielberg attempted something radical: preserve the illusion. He shot largely in sequence, kept technical details hidden and encouraged the young cast to treat E. T. as real. For Drew Barrymore, who played Elliot’s little sister, it worked. She’d wrap the animatronic creature in a scarf so it wouldn’t get cold.
For Thomas, it was harder. The illusion broke under the mechanics — whirring servos, inflatable bladders, multiple versions of the creature. The breakthrough came from somewhere else entirely: a mime named Caprice Roth, who performed E.T.‘s hands.
In the film’s devastating farewell, Thomas wasn’t acting opposite a puppet. He was saying goodbye to her. “That’s what made it real,” he says. “It’s always a human connection.”
That human connection is what made E.T. endure. It’s also what made it devastating. Spielberg pushed the film to the brink of something most family movies avoid: death.
The famous “death” scene, in which E. T. turns pale and lifeless while Elliott sobs over him, remains one of the first times many viewers confronted grief. And then, just as suddenly, resurrection. The flower revives. The heart glows. Relief floods in.
Spielberg, the great manipulator, had done it. But while audiences processed grief and catharsis in the dark, the film’s young star was about to experience a far more disorienting aftershock.
“I wasn’t ready for the fame,” Thomas admits. “I had never even thought about being famous.” One week, agencies wouldn’t return his calls because he lived in Texas. Two weeks later, after E.T. hit No. 1, “my phone started ringing.”
He stayed in Texas anyway — a decision that may have saved him. While some of his co-stars spiraled under the weight of early fame, Thomas drifted in and out of the industry on his own terms, building a career that was anything but conventional.
“There were times where everything was great and times where you couldn’t get arrested, ” he says. “You realize it’s all cyclical.”
More than four decades later, E. T. hasn’t faded. If anything, it’s grown. The first generation of merchandising may have been an afterthought — “little stuff they could produce quickly, ” he says — but the emotional imprint was permanent.
It’s still the rare blockbuster that feels handmade, intimate and deeply personal. A story about a boy and a creature, yes, but really about absence, longing and the fragile magic of connection. Or, as Thomas puts it, with the clarity of someone who’s lived both the illusion and the aftermath.
“We all get born and we all die. You don’t get a rule book,” he says. Somewhere in between, if you’re lucky, you make something that lasts forever.
Conversation highlights:
You’ve said you didn’t expect E. T. to be a hit. But it was Spielberg. Didn’t that signal something big?
It was a big deal to work with Steven, of course. He’d done Jaws, Raiders, Close Encounters. Everybody knew who he was. But E. T. felt like a smaller, more personal project. The studio basically said, “Go off and do this with your friends,” and gave him $10 million. At the time, the idea of an alien movie meant something like Alien, something scary. I think they assumed a mean alien would connect more than a gentle one. No one really knew how audiences would react to something this tender.
Your audition has become legendary. What actually happened in that room?
What people see online is only the second half. First I read dummy sides and felt like I completely blew it. If you watch the tape, I’m looking down at the start because I thought I’d lost the part. Then Spielberg and casting suggested we try an improv: I had a friend the government was taking away. The only thing I could connect it to was losing my dog as a kid. I saw it happen, and it was traumatic. So I just went there emotionally. When Steven said, “Okay, kid, you got the job,” I was shocked.
Did you even know what the movie was about at that point?
No. I didn’t know anything about the story until a couple of weeks before filming. They kept everything very secret. When I finally read the script, I remember being a little disappointed. There were no lightsabers, no space battles. My 10-year-old brain was like, “This doesn’t seem that exciting.”
Spielberg famously tried to preserve the illusion of E. T. for the kids. Did it feel real on set?
That was the intention, and to a degree it worked. Drew Barrymore was young enough that she really believed in E. T. sometimes. She’d wrap a scarf around him so he wouldn’t get cold. For me, it was harder. I knew it was a construction. There were multiple versions of E. T., lots of mechanics, and it could be noisy and distracting. What made it real for me was a mime named Caprice Roth, who performed his hands. In the goodbye scene, I was really saying goodbye to her. That human connection is what sells it.
What do you remember about working with Spielberg as a director?
He was incredibly hands-on. He’d talk to me constantly, even during takes, adjusting things on the fly. It was so ingrained that when I first saw the finished film, I thought I could still hear his voice in it. I told Kathleen Kennedy, “You’ve got to take Steven’s voice out.” She said, “Henry, it’s not there.” But it felt like it was.
You became one of the most famous kids in the world almost overnight. How did you handle that?
Not very well. I wasn’t ready for it and never saw it coming. The first time someone recognized me, it felt bizarre. And then there was this pressure to follow it up. I stayed in Texas for a long time, which in hindsight probably helped. I didn’t approach my career in a strategic way. It was always about the experience or the people. Sometimes that worked, sometimes it didn’t.
You’ve had a remarkably steady career. Was that intentional?
Not really. I just kept going. There were periods where things were great and periods where it felt like you couldn’t get arrested. You realize eventually it’s all cyclical. You don’t get a rule book. You just keep showing up.
Looking back now, what does E.T. mean to you?
It’s strange because it’s so far behind me now, but it’s also something people never stopped loving. It stayed in theaters for over a year around the world. That kind of connection is rare. I think it’s because at its core, it’s about something very simple and human. And that’s what people respond to.
Listen now and be sure to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Dearest gentle readers, Hannah Dodd and Masali Baduza are set to lead the next season of Bridgerton, now in production.
Netflix confirmed on Tuesday that Dodd’s Francesca Bridgerton will be the next sibling to find true love in the adaptation of Julia Quinn’s bestsellers.
It was also in that season that we saw the death of Francesca’s new husband, John (Victor Alli), setting the show up to focus on the blossoming romance between Francesca and John’s cousin, Michaela (gender-swapped from Michael in Quinn’s books).
“A certain countess shall find love again…,” said Netflix on X. “Bridgerton season five is now in production. Starring Hannah Dodd as Francesca Bridgerton and Masali Baduza as Michaela Stirling.” Another post added: “FRANCHAELA RISING” with new photos of the actresses.
Bridgerton has been an immensely successful franchise for the streaming giant, having accrued hundreds of millions of views over the course of its four-season run so far. The first instalment saw Rege-Jean Page and Phoebe Dynevor fall in love as Simon and Daphne Bridgerton, followed by season two’s Jonathan Bailey and Simone Ashley, and then Luke Newton and Nicola Coughlan in season three.
Fans have been speculating over who might be the next Bridgerton sibling to lead the show, with some suggesting it could be Claudia Jessie’s Eloise.
Bitcoin climbed above $71,000 today, offering bulls their first glimpse of relief since February’s collapse.
At the same time, the price move has formed the same compressive wedge pattern that preceded Bitcoin crashes in October 2025 and January 2026.
On Myriad, traders are calling it a toss up on whether Bitcoin pumps to $84K or dumps to $55K first.
After a brutal February that took Bitcoin from the mid-$90,000s all the way down to a $59,000 low, the market finally has something to feel decent about. BTC is up roughly 4.65% today, trading around $71,013 and shaking off some of the fear that dominated the last several weeks.
The problem is, in doing so, Bitcoin has drawn an all too familiar pattern on its charts—and one that suggests a price crash could be in the cards.
The broader market, meanwhile, is still anticipating hard times. Stocks sunk to four-month lows after news of a delay to potential U.S.-Iran military strikes, pushing crypto alongside equities in a mild risk-on move. WTI crude dropped sharply, and the crypto market is once again in “extreme fear” territory, based on the Crypto Fear and Greed Index.
Despite this, some Bitcoin bulls believe this is a good time to buy, considering the last time Bitcoin had a similar spike was at the beginning of the month. So who’s right? Here’s what the charts say:
Bitcoin (BTC) price: by the numbers
Bitcoin is, indeed, having a nice start to the week: a 4.6% spike, going from $67,844 to a daily high of $71,811, before settling around its current price of $70,985. This movement is trying to break past the resistance of the average price of Bitcoin in the last 200 days, which is a real test of trend strength.
Bitcoin price data. Image: Tradingview
Dig deeper and the picture gets more nuanced. The ADX—the Average Directional Index, which measures how strong any trend actually is—sits at 19.1. That’s below 25, the threshold traders use to confirm a trend has real legs. At 19.1, it’s a sign of a weakening trend, which means bears are struggling to maintain the broader crash’s momentum.
The exponential moving averages, or EMAs, tell a similar story. The 50-day exponential moving average is still trading below the 200-day, which traders would interpret as the clearest signal of a bearish trend. Exponential moving averages smooth out price action over time to help identify where the price of an asset finds support or resistance. When the short-term average sits below the long-term one, it usually means the prevailing direction is still down, even during bounces.
The Relative Strength Index, or RSI, at 51.5 is also neutral. It is not screaming buy or sell, which makes sense. Bitcoin is in that in-between zone where it’s too early to celebrate and too soon to panic (again).
The Squeeze Momentum Indicator is on, with momentum reading a modest 0.26. This number tracks when a market is coiling up energy before a big move—like a spring being compressed or prices stabilizing after a major trend. It’s on right now, meaning the spring is loading. But with momentum still low, we haven’t seen a direction yet.
Fool me once…
Here’s what makes this moment more than a run-of-the-mill bounce: The chart is drawing a pattern it has now drawn twice before—and both times, it ended badly.
Bitcoin price data. Image: Tradingview
There’s a blue descending resistance line running from Bitcoin’s October 2025 peak, around $125,000, all the way down through the current price level. This is the roof. Bitcoin keeps trying to push up and the line keeps capping it. (That’s why it’s called a resistance.)
Below price action, there are three green dotted ascending lines, running parallel to each other. These are the supports. After each major crash, Bitcoin compresses: It bounces off the ascending green floor, climbs toward the blue ceiling line, and the range gets tighter and tighter until something breaks and the price crashes.
It happened after the October 2025 crash. Bitcoin recovered into that same wedge structure, touched resistance, and then broke down hard one month later.
It happened again after the January 2026 crash. Same wedge, same compression. Then the February 2026 wipeout to $59,000.
And right now Bitcoin is forming the exact same structure. The ascending support line is acting as the floor once more. The descending blue line is sitting just overhead, roughly around $70,000 depending on when it arrives. If the pattern holds, a third rejection somewhere in April or May 2026 would be on the table.
Bitcoin price data. Image: Tradingview
On Myriad, a prediction market built by Decrypt’s parent company Dastan, the question on everyone’s mind is framed plainly: “BTC next move: Pump to $84K or Dump to $55K?”
Right now, traders are placing 51.4% odds on the bullish outcome. But that’s not a ringing endorsement of Bitcoin’s health—it’s a toss up, and likely a reflection of how extreme the $55K scenario feels.
Most traders probably can’t stomach betting on a number that low, not because they’re convinced BTC is going up, but because the downside seems too painful to price in. The gap between bulls and bears is tight and follows the market sentiment.
The one thing that could change the story
There is a scenario, though, where everything flips. If Bitcoin can break through that descending blue resistance with a strong, high-volume candle—not just touch it, but close decisively above it—followed by a series of candlesticks closing on top of the broken resistance, that would be a real signal. It would suggest the pattern has finally been broken, and that the market may have actually found a bottom around the $59,000–$64,000 range from early March.
If it respects its current support, the $80K zone becomes the next technical milestone to conquer.
That would be the kind of move that forces even skeptics to reconsider. Resistance lines that get convincingly broken tend to flip into support. (That’s just how these market dynamics work.)
But right now? The pattern is intact. Bitcoin may look nice in the short term. The immediate indicators look neutral instead of heavily bearish, the daily candle is green, and the shorts are hurting a little. None of that is reason to ignore what three data points of the same setup are telling us.
For bulls, the champagne will likely have to wait.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed by the author are for informational purposes only and do not constitute financial, investment, or other advice.
Daily Debrief Newsletter
Start every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.
Polymarket and Kalshi both made new moves to try and curb insider trading on their prediction market platforms.
Polymarket has introduced new integrity rules across its platform, clarifying the types of behaviors that are prohibited.
Meanwhile, Kalshi has created new policies and implemented preemptive screening to block individuals from certain markets.
Prediction markets Polymarket and Kalshi are taking steps to remove insider trading from their platforms, announcing updates to rules and tooling, respectively, on Monday as scrutiny continues to build on prediction markets and their offerings.
For Polymarket, Monday’s steps included updating integrity rules and clarifying types of insider trading conduct, like trading on insider information or illegal tips, which are prohibited behaviors on the firm’s DeFi platform and its CFTC-regulated U.S. platform.
“These rule enhancements make our expectations abundantly clear for every participant across both platforms and highlight the compliance infrastructure we have already built,” Polymarket Chief Legal Officer Neal Kumar said in a statement.
“As Polymarket continues to scale,” he added, “we will build on our foundation with clear communication to Polymarket’s users to ensure our markets do what they do best—surface truth.”
The rules, and examples of prohibited behavior—like a coach trading on a sports contract using inside knowledge about a star player’s availability, or an ensemble performer buying shares in a market about which songs will be played at an event—can be found on the site’s market integrity page, accessible via its footer.
Polymarket said it uses a “multi-layered monitoring system” to detect potential violations of its insider trading rules on its DeFi platform, or its international version. On the U.S. side, it works with partners and a real-time control desk to “identify unusual or disruptive trading activity.”
It also recently announced that it’s working with Peter Thiel’s Palantir to create “systems for surveilling sports-focused prediction markets.”
Monday’s advances from Kalshi take a more proactive approach to squashing insider trading on the platform, like in the example of a coach trading on a sporting event they are tied to.
The firm announced it has established a new policy disallowing members connected to college or professional sports—like coaches or players—from trading markets “associated with the sports they are involved with.” A Kalshi representative confirmed to Decrypt that athletes and others in the sports industry can trade in markets related to other sports that they are not involved in.
The firm is also implementing preemptive screening for both athletic parties and politicians using screening lists it has developed, which will allow it to block trades before they even occur.
“These efforts, which have been in the works for months, proactively address the CFTC’s guidance and Congressional bill proposals to prevent insider trading,” the firm wrote.
Insider trading allegations on prediction markets have drawn considerable attention and scrutiny this year, highlighted by anonymous traders winning major sums in markets related to subjects like government actions.
For example, one trader won more than $436,000 on the January ousting of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, leading New York representative Ritchie Torres to draft a bill that would keep federal employees from using prediction markets when they have relevant inside information.
Two weeks prior to that, two Israelis were arrested in the country and charged with using classified information to make bets about military operations on Polymarket.
Potential violations of the insider trading rules on Polymarket can be reported to the platform via Discord or email, its updated rules say. Details on how the investigations unfold from there, or how many reports are being made are not immediately clear. Kalshi has also implemented whistleblower functionality directly into its market pages, allowing individuals to flag potential insider trading behaviors.
Representatives for Polymarket did not immediately respond to Decrypt’s request for comment.
Editor’s note: This story was updated after publication to include an additional detail confirmed by Kalshi.
Daily Debrief Newsletter
Start every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.
The United States-Israeli war on Iran has caused the biggest oil disruption in history, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). The agency was founded in 1974 as a direct response to the 1973 oil embargo, which saw Arab nations, led by Saudi Arabia, cut production in response to Washington’s support for Israel during its war with Egypt and Syria that year.
In 1973, embargoed countries faced a combined shortage of 4.5 million barrels of oil per day, about 7 percent of the global supply at the time.
Today, Iran has strangled transit through the narrow Strait of Hormuz, allowing only a handful of ships to go through and halting the transport of more than 20 million barrels of oil per day – roughly one-fifth of global petroleum consumption.
Since the start of the war, the price of Brent crude, the international benchmark, has soared from $66 per barrel to more than $100.
The IEA also has issued guidance to consumers and businesses, recommending that they travel less, work remotely and use electricity for cooking rather than gas, as geopolitical risks drive up not just the price of crude but also the cost of diesel, heating oil and jet fuel.
But experts agreed these measures will do little to address a global oil shortage if the current situation persists.
More than 50 years after the 1973 oil embargo, Al Jazeera examines how that episode compares with today’s crisis.
What happened in 1973?
On October 6, 1973, Egypt and Syria launched an attack on Israel to reclaim territory Arab nations had lost six years earlier.
The 1967 Six-Day War had resulted in the Israeli occupation of Syria’s Golan Heights; Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula; the Gaza Strip, which Egypt previously controlled; and the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which Jordan had controlled.
To catch Israel off guard, the Egyptians and Syrians had chosen the date of the Yom Kippur religious holiday, the only day of the year in Israel in which there are no radio or television broadcasts, shops close and transportation shuts down as part of religious observations.
King Faisal of Saudi Arabia warned US President Richard Nixon that supporting Israel would jeopardise oil supplies. Despite that, Nixon authorised a large military airlift.
So on October 17, 1973, Arab oil-exporting nations belonging to the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) retaliated by raising the price of oil by 70 percent, cutting production by 5 percent per month and banning oil shipments to the US. The Netherlands, Portugal and South Africa were also targeted for their roles in providing diplomatic and military support to Israel.
At the time, the Middle East accounted for 36 percent of world oil production, and the embargo left the world short of 4.5 million barrels of oil per day.
How did the oil embargo affect petrol prices in 1973?
In the US, where oil imports dropped by 15 percent, the impact was quickly felt. The price of crude oil surged from less than $3 a barrel to more than $12 within months, equivalent in today’s money to a jump from $22 to somewhere between $75 and $80.
American drivers, who had been paying about 38 cents for a gallon (3.8 litres) of petrol at the start of 1973, were paying 55 cents by 1974, an almost 45 percent increase. Petrol stations also ran dry.
In November 1973, Nixon appeared on national television to ask Americans to make sacrifices. Nixon’s administration lowered speed limits, imposed fuel rationing and introduced year-round daylight saving time as an emergency energy conservation measure.
Western Europe and Japan also suffered acutely from the crisis. Japan at the time was importing about 235 billion litres (62 billion gallons) of oil annually with three-quarters of its energy coming from foreign crude oil, of which 77 percent was from Gulf countries. The United Kingdom introduced a three-day workweek, and European governments banned driving on Sundays.
How have petrol prices been affected now?
Before the US and Israel began their strikes on Iran on February 28, Brent crude oil cost $66 a barrel. Within the first week of the war on Iran, it had risen above $100 a barrel – a 60 percent increase.
As soon as the conflict began, Brent futures rose almost 7 percent. On Monday, prices for Brent futures had dropped more than 10 percent to about $100 a barrel after US President Donald Trump’s announcement of a five-day delay before threatened strikes on Iranian energy facilities to allow talks to take place.
At US filling stations, the national average petrol price climbed from less than $3 a gallon across the country to an average of more than $5 in some states – even hitting $8 in some states such as California.
In other countries, petrol prices have risen by more than 50 percent, including in Cambodia, where prices rose almost 68 percent from February 23 to March 11; Vietnam, where they rose almost 50 percent; Nigeria (35 percent); Laos (33 percent); and Canada (28 percent).
The Middle East is home to five of the world’s top 10 oil producers: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Iran and Kuwait, who use the narrow channel between Iran and Oman to export their oil. It is the only waterway available to Gulf oil and gas producers needing to send supplies to the open ocean for shipping to buyers.
Gavekal Research, an independent macroeconomic research firm, has estimated that Gulf exporters, including Iran, could reroute at most 3.5 million barrels of oil per day (bpd) that they usually send by ship to terminals outside the strait via oil pipelines. But as long as the bulk of shipping traffic remains suspended at either end of the Strait of Hormuz, the world would still face a supply shortfall of about 15 million bpd.
(Al Jazeera)
What happened in the aftermath of 1973?
The oil embargo was lifted in March 1974, but its economic consequences took the better part of a decade to be resolved.
US inflation hit 12.3 percent in 1974, up from 3.4 percent in 1972. This is because movements in the price of oil have a far-reaching knock-on effect. Oil is used to manufacture many items we use on a daily basis, and natural gas is vital for the manufacture of urea, one of the world’s most common fertilisers. Without fertiliser, crop yields are much smaller, and food prices surge.
The recession that followed the 1973 oil shock was among the deepest of the post-World War II era, affecting those countries most dependent on oil, namely in the Western Hemisphere. In the US, unemployment climbed from 4.6 percent in October 1973 to 9 percent by May 1975 while its gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 5.7 percent in 1973 and contracted by 0.5 percent the following year.
A driver pushes his car to a petrol station during the oil crisis of 1973-1974 in Boston, Massachusetts [File: Spencer Grant/Getty Images]
Other major economies were hit hard as well, particularly Japan, whose GDP grew at 8 percent in 1973 and shrank by 1.2 percent in 1974. In the same period, the UK’s GDP saw figures of 7.3 percent growth and a 1.7 percent contraction.
The US Federal Reserve raised its benchmark interest rate from 5.75 percent in 1972 to a high of 12 percent in 1974 but still could not contain inflation. Fed Chairman Paul Volcker ultimately led the central bank to raise rates to 20 percent in 1980-1981, triggering a second, even deeper recession to finally break the high inflation rate. In the UK, the benchmark interest rate rose to a record high of 17 percent in November 1979 while other Group of Seven countries also saw double-digit interest rates.
What could happen now?
Many economists are talking about the prospect of stagflation, which is the combination of high inflation, stagnant economic growth and high unemployment, which defined the 1970s in Western countries like the US and the UK.
Major oil shocks have historically summoned such stagflation. Economists pointed to the crises of 1973, 1978 and 2008 as evidence that every significant spike in oil prices has been followed, in some form, by a global recession.
In lower-income countries, where populations spend a far greater share of their income on food and which import large quantities of grain and fertiliser, rising oil prices could rapidly translate into skyrocketing food prices and lower food supplies.
(Al Jazeera)
How did governments respond to the oil crisis of 1973?
Besides implementing energy conservation measures, such as reducing heating oil supplies by about 15 percent to homes and offices, heating homes at lower temperatures and reducing the amounts of fuel for aircraft, the Nixon administration also created the Federal Energy Office to coordinate the government’s response to the crisis.
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger brokered talks with Arab leaders and pushed for an Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights. Those negotiations bore fruit in January 1974 with the First Egyptian-Israeli Disengagement Agreement, and the embargo was formally lifted in March 1974 although the higher oil prices it had unleashed were there to stay.
The crisis left a lasting mark on energy policies worldwide. Nixon launched Project Independence, aiming for full US energy self-sufficiency by 1980, while governments across Europe doubled down on developing nuclear power. Investment poured into wind, solar and geothermal research, and fuel efficiency standards for cars were tightened.
The US is now energy self-sufficient and has been a net total energy exporter since 2019, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
US President Richard Nixon on May 9, 1973, in Washington, DC [John Duricka/AP Photo]
Over the longer term, Japan underwent fundamental restructuring to reduce its dependence on imported oil and diversify into alternative energy sources, including liquefied natural gas. It also underwent a shift away from oil-intensive industries into sectors like electronics.
How are governments responding to the oil crisis now?
Within days of the conflict starting, the IEA’s 32 member nations coordinated the largest emergency drawdown of their strategic oil reserves in the agency’s history, and the 400 million barrels were more than double the volume released after the 2022 outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war. The US alone is contributing 172 million barrels over the course of this year.
The IEA’s emergency architecture has been activated only six times since the agency’s founding in 1974: 1991, 2005, 2011, twice in 2022 and 2026. Member nations collectively hold more than 1.2 billion barrels in their strategic reserves with a further 600 million barrels held by the oil industry under government obligation.
The 400 million barrel release will compensate for about 20 days of oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz but will take months to implement fully. Even deployed at maximum scale, however, the emergency architecture built in direct response to the 1973 embargo cannot cover a sustained closure of the strait.
On Friday, in a bid to control oil prices, the Trump administration lent more than 45 million barrels of crude from its strategic petroleum reserve to oil companies.
China, for example, has strategic petroleum reserves that are estimated to be able to sustain about 200 days of normal consumption, according to Deutsche Bank Research. However, for many developing nations, the cushion is far thinner.
Why is this crisis different?
Analysts argued that the historical parallel between today’s crisis and that in 1973-1974, while instructive, obscures important structural differences.
In 1973, the shock was delivered by a unified, multinational bloc targeting specific Western countries. The current disruption stems from a single actor controlling a single transit point with no coordinated production cut among Gulf producers and some countries more vulnerable than others.
One of the most enduring legacies of 1973 was the resulting diversification of global investment in alternatives to Middle Eastern oil, such as North Sea oil, US shale, liquefied natural gas and nuclear energy. Oil’s share of global primary energy has fallen from 46.2 percent in 1973 to 30.2 percent today.
However, that diversification has been overwhelmingly concentrated in members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development with Europe, North America, Japan, South Korea and Australia all substantially reducing their oil dependency.
In 1973, the shock was concentrated on Western economies, which were the primary targets. In 2026, the most vulnerable economies are the developing Asian markets that have grown fastest over the past 30 years and about 80 percent of whose oil imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Vietnam holds fewer than 20 days of oil reserves. Pakistan and Indonesia hold about 20 days each.
When Sky CEO Dana Strong described “Saturday Night Live U.K.” as a “major investment in the U.K. comedy eco-system” at a showcase for the broadcaster last week, it turns out she wasn’t joking. Variety understands that each episode of the British adaptation is costing around £2 million ($2.6 million).
Variety has also learned that, unusually for a weekly entertainment production, “SNL U.K.” has hired the largest studio in central London’s Television Centre on a standing (exclusive) basis for the entirety of its eight-week run, meaning the cast and crew aren’t sharing the space with any other production. Nor will they need to disassemble sets and clear out of the offices, galleries, edit suites and storage spaces in between episodes. It’s a luxury few productions can afford these days as budgets are tightened.
The studio, the 10,800-square foot TC1, is usually home to “The Graham Norton Show”—as Norton himself pointed out during “SNL U.K.’s” inaugural episode, when he popped up during Fey’s opening monologue. His show is not set to return until the autumn.
It’s yet another sign of Sky’s faith in “SNL U.K.,” which was originally earmarked for only 6 episodes before a last-minute vote of confidence that saw it bumped up to 8 before the first episode had even been broadcast. At the Sky showcase five days before the inaugural episode aired, Strong described the show as “a point of pride for me” and “perhaps our most ambitious undertaking yet.”
While the show’s weekly budget still falls far short of its Stateside counterpart’s rumoured $4 million (£3 million) per episode, it’s a figure that is almost unheard of for a topical sketch show in the U.K., even one running to 75-minutes.
Insiders tell Variety that a typical British sketch show usually costs around £300-500,000 per episode, less than a quarter of “SNL U.K.’s” budget.
They pointed out it’s one of the reasons the sketch show format has become something of a dying art in the U.K. “They’re expensive, which is why no one does them anymore,” says one entertainment veteran. “Topical shows also have no repeatability, unlike dramas.”
As well as the exclusive studio hire for two months, a chunk of “SNL U.K.’s” budget will no doubt have gone on the 11-strong cast and team of 20 writers, not to mention the producing team, which includes “The Late Late Show With James Corden” vet James Longman as producer and “SNL” creator Lorne Michaels as exec producer, plus its numerous sets and costumes, many of which need to be produced with a tight turnaround as the writing team responds to current events.
The ratings for the inaugural episode, hosted by Tina Fey, drew a respectable 226,000 viewers and a mixed bag of reviews. Scott Bryan, reviewing the first episode for Variety, said it risks being “too American” for a British audience but even where a sketch doesn’t always work “there’s enough one-liners to keep you going.”
Online, and particularly YouTube, where “SNL” skits tend to have their most successful half-life, Fey’s opening monologue attracted over 1.6 million views in less than 48 hours, followed by the Keir Starmer cold open with 1 million views.
Sky will no doubt now be waiting to see what the viewing figures look like next weekend, when “Fifty Shades” star Jamie Dornan takes over hosting duties from Fey, to see if their £16 million investment has been worth it.
Comcast-owned network Sky, which is producing and broadcasting the series in the U.K., declined to comment.
A documentary is in development following former British professional jockey Jo Lodder‘s plan to run an unbroken course taking in every one of the U.K.’s 59 licensed racecourses this fall, raising money and awareness for charities focused on the racing community and mental health.
Lodder, who now lives in Hong Kong, was a multi-winning professional jockey who competed for a decade across the U.K. and Europe before his career ended abruptly in his late 20s after he broke his back. He has since found a new sporting life in ultra-distance running, completing a number of major long-distance events.
The documentary will be produced by Hiu Man Chan through NGO U.K.-China Film Collab, weaving together footage shot on the route with archive racing material and interviews with Lodder and figures from across the sport. U.K.-China Film Collab, whose previous credits include the Hong Kong documentary “Four Trails,” plans to pursue a tailored release strategy across festival and cross-border markets, with a focus on U.K., Hong Kong and international audiences.
“Injury took racing away from me and I hid away. Now I’ve risen my head and seen how amazing the racing community is. I want to give back by running all 59 racecourses, telling their stories, and helping the less-seen people critical to our sport,” Lodder said.
Chan said: “When I hear about Jo’s stories, I can already see a film. Oftentimes, the greater impacts are driven by an individual’s intense and unexplainable passion. It’s the extraordinary imagination and sometimes madness that will continue to inspire the next generation to question and reflect on life. With a similar determination, I hope to translate Jo’s journey into a cinematic endeavour.”
The project is not Lodder’s first time as a documentary subject. In 2025 he featured in “Run China Run,” which chronicled his team’s 3,140km journey on foot from the Great Wall of China to Kai Tak Airport in Hong Kong, completed over 60 days.
The project was developed over conversations at the U.K. Film Pavilion during FilMart 2026 in Hong Kong.
If the Sonos app saga still has you down, Denon has three new multi-room speakers that give you some fresh alternatives. The company’s Home 200, Home 400 and Home 600 offer audio flexibility with other HEOS-enabled products. These new devices were also designed so that they blend in with home decor better than most speakers, coming in stone and charcoal color options for that purpose. As you progress up in number, the speakers not only get physically larger, but their sonic output is also more robust.
The Denon Home 200 houses three drivers and three amplifiers for “natural, room-filling sound” in a compact speaker. More specifically, you get two 0.98-inch tweeters and a single 4-inch woofer. The Home 200 looks a kind of like the Sonos Move 2, although Denon’s new compact unit isn’t portable. However, you can use a pair of them for a stereo setup, or connect two 200s to Denon’s Home Sound Bar 550 and Home Subwoofer for a 5.1 home theater system.
Next up is the Home 400, which carries two 0.75-inch tweeters, two 4.5-inch woofers and six amplifiers, in addition to two 1-inch up-firing drivers. Here, Denon says you can expect “a wide, airy soundstage” that provides room-filling audio coverage. What’s more, those upward-facing drivers project sound overhead, so there’s a greater sense of dimensionality and immersion here.
Denon Home 600 speaker (Denon)
The Home 600 is the largest speaker in the new trio, with dual 6.5-inch woofers alongside two tweeters, two midrange units and two up-firing drivers. Denon explains that this configuration offers “deep, authoritative bass” that provides more depth in your tunes than other two models.
All three of the new Home speakers have Wi-Fi, Bluetooth USB-C and aux connectivity with the wireless streaming powered by Denon’s HEOS tech. As such, you can connect these Home speakers with up to 64 other HEOS devices — including A/V receivers and Denon’s new DP-500BT turntable — and arrange your audio gear in up to 32 different zones. You’ll have access to tunes from Tidal, Amazon Music HD and Qobuz in the HEOS app, and all three new Home speakers support Dolby Atmos Music where available.
The Home 200, Home 400 and Home 600 speakers are available today for $399, $599 and $799 respectively. They’re available from Denon directly or other authorized retailers.
