Institutional Trust Issues

"Disinformation campaigns aimed at undermining electoral integrity are expected to play an ever larger role in elections due to the increased availability of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools that can produce high-quality synthetic text, audio, images and videos and their potential for targeted personalization. As these campaigns become more sophisticated and manipulative, the foreseeable consequence is further erosion of trust in institutions and heightened disintegration of civic integrity, jeopardizing a host of human rights, including electoral rights and the right to freedom of thought. → These developments are occurring at a time when the companies that create the fabric of digital society should be investing heavily in, but instead are dismantling, the “integrity” or “trust and safety” teams that counter these threats. Policy makers must hold AI companies liable for the harms caused or facilitated by their products that could have been reasonably foreseen. They should act quickly to ban using AI to impersonate real people or organizations, and require the use of watermarking or other provenance tools to allow people to differentiate between AI-generated and authentic content." By David Evan Harris and Aaron Shull of the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI).

🔴 $150B in Bitcoin ETFs. BlackRock alone holds nearly $100B - bigger than any crypto fund in history! Everyone sees the numbers. Few ask what they really mean. 👇 For a decade, "institutional adoption" in crypto meant investing through crypto-native infrastructure - exchanges, custodians, and on-chain protocols. And yes, it did scale: liquidity deepened, custody matured, large players entered. But not fast enough - and not under the level of reliability, regulation, and integration that major financial institutions require. The rails worked for traders and crypto funds. They didn’t yet work for banks, pension funds, or insurers managing trillions. 👉 Then came the ETFs. And in just a few months, they achieved what years of crypto infrastructure couldn’t: they made Bitcoin institutionally investable - seamlessly, compliantly, and within familiar frameworks. But here’s the key insight: The success of Bitcoin ETFs doesn’t mean crypto is institution-ready. It means institutions still don’t trust the crypto infrastructure enough to use it directly. They’re comfortable with the asset, but not with the rails. They buy through BlackRock, not through DeFi - and that says everything. The contrast couldn’t be clearer: 👉 Bitcoin ETFs: over $150 billion AUM, massive inflows, global liquidity. 👉 Tokenized money market funds: only a few billion in total AUM - even BlackRock, Spiko, and Franklin Templeton's tokenized funds are still relatively small. 👉 Stablecoins: issued by Circle and other regulated players, are growing fast but still only $80B, signaling strong interest but also that adoption is in early stages. Same idea - tokenizing traditional financial exposure - but a completely different scale. This shows the gap between demand and infrastructure maturity. Yet, it also highlights what’s coming next. As actors become more professional and regulation gets clearer, both tokenized money market funds and stablecoins are likely to experience the same acceleration that ETFs just did. Institutions want simplicity and compliance - the exact reasons why Bitcoin ETFs exploded. Once those same conditions exist on-chain, the growth curve will look very similar. Institutions will want more than passive exposure - they’ll look for yield-bearing strategies, tokenized collateral, and on-chain products that meet their standards. The winners will be the builders who create the institutional layer of crypto - regulated, transparent, and interoperable with TradFi. At The Big Whale, we’re following this evolution closely - through our dashboards, research reports, and market calls, helping investors understand where institutional adoption is truly accelerating. Our next Market Call is on November 12 with André Dragosch, PhD (Head of Research at Bitwise Europe) & Aleksandar Bukovski (Analyst at The Big Whale). We’ll dive deeper into these trends: ETFs, tokenized funds, and what they reveal about the next phase of institutional crypto.

Gender debates are increasingly about strategic signaling rather than substantive policy. Rather than engaging with concrete needs, opportunities, and vulnerabilities, “gender” is often mobilized performatively—to draw boundaries, signal alignment, and provoke reactions—operating at the level of symbols and antagonisms rather than governance. In a recent Journal of Democracy article, Pär Zetterberg and I show how illiberal and authoritarian leaders treat “gender” as a flexible political instrument—adapted to different audiences and political moments. Across cases, we observe how regimes combine and shift between strategies: ➡️ 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴, where feminism, LGBTQ+ rights, or “gender ideology” are framed as threats—used to polarize publics and delegitimize democratic and human-rights claims. ➡️ 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴, where selective commitments to women’s rights or equality are highlighted to project modernity and responsibility, often toward international partners and donors, while drawing attention away from authoritarian practices. ➡️ 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 over time and space, with leaders presenting different gender narratives to different audiences, or shifting strategies as political needs change. Beyond the examples we raise in the article, in Trump’s U.S., gender equality is invoked selectively to justify anti-immigrant policies, while DEI programs are rolled back as “gender ideology.” In China, Xi Jinping has praised advances for women at public conferences while simultaneously directing crackdowns on feminist activists. ➡️ 𝗔 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿, where both approaches function as tools of regime legitimation. As we write in the article: “Advocates of democracy and gender equality need to understand the uses to which authoritarians put genderwashing and genderbashing. Both are strategies meant to deflect attention from (or to justify) violations of democratic norms and institutions. As such, genderwashing and genderbashing constitute threats to democracy.” 🔗 https://lnkd.in/e6JDkn93 Saskia Brechenmacher Leandra Bias, DPhil (Oxon) Elzbieta Korolczuk Emanuela Lombardo Johanna Kantola Jennifer Piscopo Michael Wahman Li Susanne Bennich-Bjorkman Björn Holmberg Phillip Ayoub Sarah Bush Daniela Donno Andrea Krizsan Aili Tripp Marwa Shalaby Yuree N. Alejandra López Villegas Carolyn Barnett David Rosén International IDEA Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation UN Women National Democratic Institute (NDI) Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

One of the biggest threats to our democracy is the lack of full participation. People with lower incomes and those without college degrees vote at significantly lower rates than Americans with higher earnings and more education; people of color are also less likely to vote than White people. These problems have worsened over the last few election cycles. Important new research from professor Daniel Laurison and colleagues from Swarthmore College highlights a powerful reality behind this problem: many working-class and low-income Americans aren’t apathetic about politics — they feel disconnected from it. Based on hundreds of interviews across Pennsylvania, the report offers powerful insights into why participation gaps persist and what could rebuild trust. Key findings: • Politics feels “not for people like me.” Many non-voters and infrequent voters see politics as dominated by wealthier, more educated people and feel excluded from political spaces. • Widespread belief that the system is corrupt or ineffective. Participants often doubt that politicians care about their communities or that government can deliver meaningful change. • Disconnection—not apathy—drives disengagement. Most interviewees care deeply about their families, communities, and issues, but struggle to see how politics connects to their daily lives. What would help rebuild engagement? The report highlights key priorities: 1️⃣ Show how politics improves real lives. People want clear, tangible links between policy and the problems they face. 2️⃣ Increase representation. People want to see leaders from working-class and low-income backgrounds across government and political organizations. 3️⃣ Spend more time listening in communities. Trust grows when leaders engage directly and consistently with the people they represent. The punchline: Political disengagement is often a symptom of disconnection and distrust—not lack of interest. Rebuilding participation means making politics more relatable, representative, and responsive. For more information and to download the report: https://lnkd.in/gMMFEwGZ

Last week, I asked a senior fund manager in India what his views on Bitcoin were. His reply: "Irrelevant. The regulator does not allow us to offer it — so I have never studied it.” This is the reality for many Indian investors today. The moment they reach out to their advisors or wealth managers, what they usually hear is: - Bitcoin is useless. - Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. - Bitcoin is only for speculators and criminals. - Bitcoin is a bubble, a Ponzi scheme or a scam. Such responses usually stem not from real analysis, but from biases and assumptions. Globally, the largest asset managers, corporations, and even nation states that once dismissed Bitcoin have, after serious and open-minded study, become some of its strongest advocates. The mission of every financial advisor is simple: protect the client’s long-term future. That duty deserves diligence. Dismissing Bitcoin simply because it challenges assumptions built in the post-1971 era of “print-money-when-needed” does not serve that mission. At the very least, Bitcoin deserves to be studied for what it is: verifiable scarcity, settlement finality without intermediaries, 16+ years of uninterrupted operations, and a proven tool for preserving purchasing power over long time frames. Bitcoin is not a get-rich-quick scheme. It is a perfected form of monetary technology that allows families to safeguard the value of their time and energy in an age where money supply can expand at will. Over the past few months, Shiv and I have been meeting SEBI-registered RIAs, family offices, and financial distributors to address their doubts and concerns about Bitcoin. If you are an advisor or wealth team, we would be glad to host in-person sessions in your city — walking through Bitcoin’s mechanics, risks, regulations, and potential role in portfolios. And no — these conversations come with no expectation to associate with BitSave. Before dismissing Bitcoin, take the time to understand it. Your clients and their future deserve nothing less.

The idea of a social contract is simple: citizens follow the rules, and the state protects them in return. But what happens when that contract feels quietly, repeatedly broken? Summing up thoughts from an impromptu discussion at eChai Ventures social with Jatin Chaudhary Syed Nadeem Jafri Mitesh Shethwala & Harsha Bhurani A few days ago, a Delhi biker at his prime lost his life after falling into an open ditch dug by the Delhi Jal Board. A public road. A preventable hazard. No warning signs. No barricades. What followed was just as disturbing reports of delayed response, lack of accountability, and an absence of institutional support when it mattered most. This isn’t just about one tragic accident. It’s about trust, TRUST on Public Institutions. When citizens step out each morning, they assume basic safety, roads won’t be death traps, authorities will act swiftly, and responsibility will be owned when systems fail. When these assumptions collapse, fear replaces trust, and apathy replaces civic pride. The most painful part is that this erosion doesn’t happen in dramatic moments alone. It happens slowly through silence, through “not my department,” through normalising negligence as fate and by finding escape goats. If public institutions exist to serve people, then who speaks when systems fail? If accountability is diffused, who carries moral responsibility? And if citizens begin to expect nothing, what happens to democracy itself? So the harder questions we must ask are: How do institutions rebuild trust after such failures? What does real accountability look like beyond inquiries and statements? And how do we, as citizens, demand safer systems without becoming resigned or cynical? Because a social contract, once broken, isn’t repaired by wordsbut by action, ownership, and change. #Reflection #BuildingBetter #UrbanVoices

🌍📢 The United Nations’ first-ever Global Risk Report is out, — and mis‑ and #disinformation has emerged as one of the top global threats in the years ahead. 🔎 Based on expert input from across 136 countries, the report identifies 28 major global risks — and places mis‑ and disinformation at the forefront of concern. 📊 Key finding: 🟥 Over 80% of respondents say mis‑ and disinformation is already occurring now, making it the most pervasive currently unfolding global #risk. 🚨 That means it’s not just a future threat — it’s a present crisis. And yet, experts agree that global institutions are poorly prepared to respond. 🤝 The report flags mis‑ and disinformation as a top global vulnerability: 🧠 Undermining public trust 📣 Fueling polarisation 🌐 Weakening institutions 💥 Disrupting crisis response 📉 Without strong international cooperation or coherent governance of the information space, this risk threatens to erode societal resilience from the inside out. 💡 The UN calls for urgent collective action: ✅ Advance digital literacy ✅ Promote information integrity ✅ Foster cross-sector resilience — from governments and platforms to civil society ✅ Integrate mis‑ and disinformation into global risk governance frameworks 🛡️ This isn’t just about falsehoods — it’s about our ability to withstand crises, preserve democratic dialogue, and maintain institutional trust. Strengthening societal resilience in the face of mis‑ and disinformation must become a core pillar of risk preparedness. 📖 👉 Full report: https://lnkd.in/d9cEewpC We can’t afford to ignore the information crisis at the heart of our global risk landscape. #UN #GlobalRiskReport #Misinformation #Disinformation #InformationIntegrity #Trust #DigitalLiteracy #RiskGovernance #StrategicCommunication #SocietalResilience

🧭 Neighbourhood Partnerships, National Plans—But Where’s the Public? The NHS 10-Year Plan promised transformation. Integrated Neighbourhood Partnerships (INPs) were positioned as the vehicle—bringing care closer to communities, aligning services, and shifting power locally. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: the public is still largely unaware, uninvolved, and unconvinced. ✅ What’s Working • Cross-sector collaboration is happening—GPs, councils, voluntary groups, and social care are talking more than ever. • Place-based models are gaining traction, with some areas seeing improved coordination and reduced duplication. • Community assets—from cricket clubs to carers’ cafés—are finally being recognised as part of the health ecosystem. These are real wins. But they’re fragile. And they’re not yet felt by the public. ⚠️ What’s Challenging • Communication remains transactional, not relational. Digital-first updates, jargon-heavy strategies, and top-down messaging exclude the very people INPs claim to serve. • Co-production is often performative. Lived experience is invited late, framed as feedback—not as foundational insight. • Speed of change is outpacing public understanding. System leaders are sprinting. The public is still at the starting line. • Equity is still an afterthought. Mixed-heritage families, men as carers, and trauma-informed pathways remain underrepresented. 💸 Funding Isn’t the Problem—But Follow-Through Is Billions have been invested in transformation programmes, digital infrastructure, and community pilots. Yet ask the public what’s changed, and the answer is often: not much. • Previous investments lacked visibility. Communities weren’t shown how funding translated into better care or stronger relationships. • Impact measurement was system-facing, not people-facing. Dashboards improved. Lived experience did not. • Short-term funding cycles undermined trust. Promising initiatives vanished when the money dried up—leaving communities sceptical. Now, with INPs at the centre of reform, we risk repeating the cycle: investing in structure without investing in story, trust, and public understanding. 🔁 The Risk Without meaningful public engagement, INPs risk becoming another structural reform that feels distant, confusing, and imposed. 🗣️ What Needs to Shift • Narrative clarity: Translate policy into human terms. • Relational trust: Build communication that listens and reflects lived realities. • Inclusive design: Equity must be embedded, not appended. • Visible impact: Show how INPs change lives—not just systems. 💬 Final Thought Integrated Neighbourhood Partnerships are not just a structural fix. They are a relational promise. If we want the public to believe in them, we must first speak in ways they understand, feel, and trust. Because health reform isn’t just about systems. It’s about belonging. #PublicMatter NHS Buckinghamshire Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care Board Healthwatch England NHS England

Quantum Computing Fears Drive Bitcoin Exit From Major Investment Portfolio Introduction Growing concern that quantum computing could eventually undermine cryptocurrency security has prompted a major global investment strategist to drop Bitcoin from long-term portfolio recommendations. The move highlights rising anxiety among institutional investors about whether digital assets can remain secure in a post-quantum world. The Investment Shift • Christopher Wood, Global Head of Equity Strategy at Jefferies, removed a 10 percent Bitcoin allocation from his model portfolio • Bitcoin exposure is being replaced with 5 percent physical gold and 5 percent gold mining equities • Wood originally added Bitcoin in 2020 as an inflation hedge and increased exposure during the Covid-era stimulus period Why Quantum Computing Is the Trigger • Bitcoin relies on the SHA-256 cryptographic hashing algorithm, considered unbreakable by today’s classical computers • Researchers have warned since at least 2022 that sufficiently powerful quantum computers could theoretically crack this encryption in the 2030s • A sudden cryptographic break could erase trust in Bitcoin and cause a rapid collapse in value Counterarguments From the Crypto Community • Current quantum computers are far too limited and unstable to threaten modern cryptography • Advances in quantum computing are gradual and visible, giving developers time to upgrade security • If Bitcoin encryption falls, so would banking systems, government communications, and internet security • Post-quantum cryptography is already under active development and could be adopted by blockchains Why This Matters The debate underscores a fundamental question about digital scarcity and long-term trust. While quantum computing remains a future risk rather than an immediate one, the perception of vulnerability is already influencing capital allocation. For traditional investors, this uncertainty strengthens the appeal of gold as a proven store of value, while forcing cryptocurrencies to confront how they will adapt to a post-quantum security landscape. I share daily insights with 37,000+ followers across defense, tech, and policy. If this topic resonates, I invite you to connect and continue the conversation. Keith King https://lnkd.in/gHPvUttw

Authoritarian regimes — Russia, China, Iran — have dramatically escalated hybrid warfare over the past decade. Every drone incursion, ransomware attack, and effort to manipulate information shares a unified purpose: eroding public trust in democratic institutions, dividing liberal societies, and weakening the international order. And it's working. In a new report "No Time to Lose: Liberal Democracies Can Win the Cognitive and Hybrid War Against Authoritarians" Sasha Havlicek, David Salvo, and Dr. Arndt Freytag von Loringhoven lay out why democratic governments' current response, largely reactive and fragmented across siloed ministries, is insufficient to the scale of the threat. Democracies have moved from ignoring the challenge to naming it. But naming it isn't enough. We must leverage democracies advantages to retake the strategic advantage. The authors offer three core recommendations: 👉 Establish a counter-hybrid doctrine — one that signals a genuine willingness to respond asymmetrically, develop offensive capabilities, and map adversaries' vulnerabilities, not just defend against them. 👉 Reorganize government to address hybrid threats holistically — appointing lead agencies, creating cross-domain intelligence coordination, and building informal "coalitions of the willing" outside traditional NATO/EU channels when necessary. 👉 Put strategic communications front and center — trumpeting defensive successes, making the human costs of hybrid attacks legible to citizens, and empowering trusted non-governmental voices (mayors, faith leaders, influencers) to build societal resilience. In 2026, the cognitive domain is the decisive battleground. Democracies have the tools to compete — but only if they treat this as the strategic challenge it is. Link to the full report (a quick 10 minute read) in comments and check out the briefer video below that I generated in NotebookLM. #DisinformationResearch #HybridWarfare #InformationIntegrity #FIMI #DemocraticResilience #StrategicCommunications