Bitcoin’s recovery to $84,500 on Friday exemplifies why following crowd sentiment often leads to poor trading decisions.

The recent market movements contradict common predictions during periods of extreme fear or greed.

Data analysis from Santiment reveals that social media reached peak negativity when Bitcoin btc0.01%Bitcoin dipped to $78,000 earlier in the week. There was also online chatter about further declines. This pattern mirrors late February’s market behavior when a temporary price surge in early March followed retail traders’ bearish outlook.

“Bitcoin’s rally back to $84.5K Friday shows what happens when the Monday crowd claims it’s time to sell,” Santiment noted. “Predictably, FUD hit its peak as $BTC was down to $78K, with predictions pouring in for lower prices all across social media.”

The research highlights Bitcoin’s recent stability within a defined range, having neither fallen below $70,000 nor broken above $100,000 over the past month. This stability creates clear sentiment markers: predictions below $70,000 means excessive fear, while forecasts above $100,000 signal overexuberance.

“Historically, markets move the opposite direction of the crowd’s expectations,” Santiment explained. They noted that clusters of bearish predictions ($10K-$69K) often follow upward reversals, while groupings of bullish forecasts ($100K-$159K) usually signal downturns.

Technical analysis supports this sentiment-based approach. Crypto analyst Rekt Capital pointed out that “the signs for a weakening resistance were there.”

He noted that the recent price movement is filling the CME gap between $82,245 and approximately $87,000. He suggests that a daily close above resistance could catalyze further upward momentum.

The current market structure also presents potentially bullish technical signals. Another analyst, Merlijn The Trader, highlighted Bitcoin’s approaching “golden cross.”

This is a technical pattern where the 50-day moving average crosses above the 200-day moving average.

This indicator has historically preceded substantial rallies:

• 139% in 2016
• 2,200% in 2017
• 1,190% in 2020 following previous occurrences.

When sentiment reaches extremes, positions become overcrowded on one side, creating the conditions for sharp reversals. As traders collectively lean bearish, selling pressure exhausts, leaving primarily buyers to influence price action.

At last check, Bitcoin was down 0.2% for the day, trading at $84,145. It’s down 22.7% from its all-time high of $108,786.

[Crypto News]

Bitcoin is struggling to break past $85,000 in March, and traders on Polymarket, a Polygon-based prediction market, are betting that a major rally is unlikely.

Data from Polymarket shows that traders see almost no chance of Bitcoin reaching $200,000 by March 31, with the probability sitting at less than one percent.

The most popular bet suggests Bitcoin will remain below $75,000, with nearly 30% of traders backing that outcome. Even a move to $100,000 is seen as unlikely, with only a ten percent chance assigned to that level.

Bitcoin’s consolidation phase

Despite the bearish outlook from Polymarket traders, macro investor Dan Tapiero remains optimistic. Speaking on TheStreet Roundtable with Scott Melker, he said Bitcoin’s recent price action is unfolding exactly as expected.

“I think we’re going to chop up back and forth between $70,000 and $100,000 to digest all this news, and at some point, we’re going to head back up,” Tapiero said. “I’ve had this $180,000 target in mind for a while.”

He believes that the current consolidation phase is healthy for Bitcoin’s long-term growth and that the next major move will push the price toward $180,000, possibly by the end of the year.

While traders on Polymarket remain cautious, Tapiero sees no reason for concern. He pointed out that Bitcoin is still up significantly from 18 months ago, and market cycles take time to play out.

Bitcoin’s current market activity

As of now, Bitcoin is trading at $83,234, up 1% in the past 24 hours. The broader crypto market is also seeing gains, with Ethereum rising 1% to $1,900, and Solana climbing 5% to $132. BNB coin is up 2.47% at $594.06, while Dogecoin has gained 2% to $0.173.

Despite these price movements, overall trading volumes have been declining. February saw a sharp 20% drop in trading activity across centralized exchanges, falling to a four-month low of $7.2 trillion. The decline was largely attributed to macroeconomic concerns, including international trade tensions and tariff threats from the Trump administration.

[The Street]

The Goldman Sachs 2024 annual letter to shareholders devotes a few words to crypto and distributed ledger technology.

According to the report, blockchain, cryptocurrencies, and other digital assets have led to "increased competition" in the financial industry.

The company notes it has exposure to distributed ledger technology via client facilitation, investment and as a third-party vendor only.

The report cites fears of the market and cyber vulnerabilities associated with these technologies.

“[A]lthough the prevalence and scope of applications of distributed ledger technology, cryptocurrency and similar technologies is growing, the technology is nascent and may be vulnerable to cyber attacks or have other inherent weaknesses”, states the letter.

In 2024, the bank was set to initiate tokenization projects to help clients invest in financial assets like real estate and money market using public and private blockchains.

However, this does not mean that the firm is making a major strategic pivot in the direction of cryptocurrencies, the report explains.

In December 2024, CEO David Solomon had suggested that Goldman Sachs would look to participate in Bitcoin and Ethereum markets if the U.S. regulatory landscape changed, stating that current regulations prohibited the bank to trade in cryptocurrency.

He also reiterated his characterization, as of this January, of Bitcoin being an “interesting speculative asset" adding, “I do not think Bitcoin is a threat to the US dollar” in an interview with CNBC back on January 22.

In late 2024, Goldman Sachs raised its holdings in Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) by 15%. Based on its most recent 13F disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Goldman raised its total crypto ETF holdings to $2.05 billion in the fourth quarter of 2024 from the $744 million it held in the third quarter.

With its largest concentration in BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) at $1.2 billion, the bank's Bitcoin ETF holdings $1.6 billion.

[The Street]

Media personality Toke Makinwa has stated that if she had gotten married again, she would have ended up divorced.

She recently spoke about her life as a single and childless woman at 40, stating that she has come to terms with her journey and focused on her accomplishments.

In a recent episode of her podcast, Makinwa admitted that she used to feel pressure about not having a child or a partner at her age, but has since learned to embrace her truth.

Toke, who turned 40 last year, confessed that if she had gotten married again, she would have ended up divorced, citing that the lessons never stop.

Instead of dwelling on what could have been, Makinwa is choosing to focus on her achievements, including building a media empire, being one of Africa’s most influential voices, and enjoying good health.

She said: “I am 40, I am single, and I am childless. I said it, and I didn’t die, and that always made me tear up. I used to feel like, how am I 40 and I don’t have a child? How am I 40 and I single? How am I 40, and I am alone? Listen, if I am completely honest with you guys, if I had gotten married again, I would have been divorced. Because the lessons never stop. 

“I am grateful for the journey, I am grateful for where I am at, and I am grateful that I am 40. I look at my life like I am 40 and a boss, have built an empire, am one of the most resounding voices in Africa, have a love of family, and am in great health. I love what I do, and I am not waking up miserable, thinking that I am still here.

“You need to sit with your truth, and when you do so, you can’t shame the shameless”.

[TheNation]

The Nigerian political landscape has been plagued by constant defections among party members, with loyalty often shifting based on personal interests rather than ideological alignment.

The absence of a strong political ideology has led to a situation where politicians frequently move from one party to another in search of power, relevance, or personal gain. A notable example is the political journey of Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, former Governor of Kaduna State, whose recent defections from the All Progressive Congress (APC) to the Social Democratic Party (SDP) reflect the larger instability within Nigeria’s party system.

Nigeria’s political parties lack clear-cut ideological foundations, making them platforms for personal ambition rather than institutions that uphold specific principles. Unlike advanced democracies where parties are defined by conservative, liberal, or socialist ideologies, Nigerian parties operate more as vehicles for political survival. This has led to an endless cycle of defections whenever politicians feel sidelined or their ambitions threatened.

Mallam Nasir El-Rufai’s political history is a reflection of this trend. He started his political career under the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), where he served as Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) under President Olusegun Obasanjo. However, following internal party disputes and a period of self-exile, he defected to the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), a party led by Muhammadu Buhari. Later, he joined the merger that formed the All Progressives Congress (APC), where he became the Governor of Kaduna State.

Despite his contributions to the APC, recent developments suggest tensions within the party, with speculation about his next political move. His recent defections to APC was not surprising, as such shifts have become a norm among Nigerian politicians.
There are factors for political defections in Nigeria:

1. Absence of Ideology: Since political parties do not operate based on principles or philosophies, politicians see them as mere platforms for contesting elections.

2. Personal Interests: Politicians defect when their ambitions are threatened, or they seek better opportunities elsewhere.

3. Godfatherism and Internal Party Struggles: Conflicts between powerful figures within parties often force members to leave in search of greener pastures.

4. Electoral Survival: When politicians sense that their party may lose an upcoming election, they jump ship to align with the expected winner.

5. Political Persecution: Some defections occur to evade investigations either from EFCC, ICPC,, or sanctions from ruling parties.

Consequences of Party Instability

The lack of political stability in Nigeria has several negative consequences:

Weak Democracy: The absence of ideological commitment weakens democracy, as parties fail to offer clear governance alternatives.

Lack of Policy Continuity: Frequent defections result in policy inconsistencies, as new administrations often abandon their predecessors’ projects.

Loss of Public Trust: The electorate becomes disillusioned when politicians prioritize personal gain over national development.

Political Confusion: Voters struggle to differentiate between parties, making informed electoral choices difficult.

The Way Forward

To address the problem of political defections, Nigeria must:

Enforce Party Discipline: Political parties must develop strong internal structures that discourage indiscriminate defections.

Promote Ideological Politics: Parties should be built on clear principles that guide policies and governance.

Strengthen Electoral Laws: Laws should be enacted to limit mid-term defections, ensuring political stability.

Encourage Political Awareness:

Citizens should demand accountability from politicians and vote based on ideology rather than personality.

Lastly, the constant wave of defections in Nigeria’s political space is a symptom of the lack of ideology among its political parties. El-Rufai’s journey through multiple parties highlights the fluidity of political loyalty in the country. Until parties define their core principles and politicians commit to them, the cycle of defections will continue, undermining Nigeria’s democracy and governance.

Nigeria’s political landscape is no stranger to robust debates, criticisms, and counterarguments. However, when constructive criticisms are met with Ad Hominem attacks rather than reasoned rebuttals, democracy suffers. This unfortunate trend has become glaringly evident in the Federal Government’s (FG) recurrent responses to former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s critiques.

Obasanjo, a statesman with a storied history in Nigeria’s governance, has never shied away from speaking his mind. Whether one agrees with his views or not, his criticisms, often rooted in his experience and perspective, ought to be engaged with facts, logic, and counterpoints. Unfortunately, the Nigerian government’s responses to Obasanjo have frequently taken the form of personal attacks, character assassination, and diversionary rhetoric. This approach does not serve the public interest and only deepens the perception of a government unwilling to engage in intellectual discourse.

A critical look at past engagements between Obasanjo and the FG reveals a disturbing pattern of name-calling and deflection. Rather than addressing the substance of his criticisms, government spokespersons often resort to attacking Obasanjo’s person, his past leadership, or his perceived shortcomings.

For instance, in July 2019, Obasanjo wrote an open letter to President Muhammadu Buhari, warning of rising insecurity in Nigeria. He highlighted the increasing cases of terrorism, banditry, and ethnic violence, urging the government to take urgent steps to address the crisis before the nation spiraled into chaos.

Rather than acknowledging the valid concerns raised, the FG, through its spokespersons, dismissed the letter as the ramblings of an embittered former leader. The response included accusations that Obasanjo was merely seeking relevance and attempting to destabilize the government. Lai Mohammed, the then Minister of Information, derided the former president, implying that he was a hypocrite who failed to tackle insecurity during his own tenure.

The core issues raised in the letter, and how to decisively tackle the worsening security situation, were left unaddressed. Instead, the response deflected attention to Obasanjo’s past rather than presenting a coherent counterargument or outlining concrete steps to improve security.

In a similar vein, in January 2023, following the general elections, Obasanjo criticized the electoral process, raising concerns about the credibility of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and calling for remedial actions to uphold democracy. This was a crucial intervention in a period when Nigerians were expressing disillusionment with electoral transparency.

Again, rather than engaging with the substantive issues, the FG’s response was laced with vitriol. Presidential aides dismissed Obasanjo as a meddlesome “political busybody” and accused him of attempting to install his own preferred candidates. The government completely sidestepped discussions on the election’s credibility and the concerns raised by both local and international observers. It was another missed opportunity for constructive engagement.

Also in a similar vein, in 2020, Obasanjo criticized the economic direction of the Buhari administration, particularly the growing debt profile and the lack of economic diversification. He cautioned against Nigeria’s increasing reliance on foreign loans, warning that it could lead to economic enslavement.

Rather than addressing these warnings with economic data or a roadmap for managing the country’s finances, the FG’s response was dismissive and laced with personal jabs. The presidency accused Obasanjo of hypocrisy, referencing the debt Nigeria accumulated under his watch while ignoring the key point of rising debt without corresponding economic growth.

In fact, the Federal Government’s recent response to former President Obasanjo’s criticism of the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway project is fundamentally flawed. Attacking a respected elder statesman for expressing his views, rather than engaging with the substance of his concerns, demonstrates a disregard for constructive criticism and democratic discourse. Obasanjo’s experience and insights into governance are valuable, and flippantly dismissing his opinions with a flippant is unarguably disrespectful and counterproductive.

Furthermore, the government’s defensiveness, particularly the Minister’s personalizing of the criticism by claiming “if someone calls this project fraudulent, they are also calling me a fraud,” suggests an unwillingness to accept scrutiny. Transparency and accountability are essential for public trust, and a mature response would involve addressing Obasanjo’s specific concerns about wastefulness and corruption with detailed evidence and reasoned arguments, not resorting to personal attacks and dismissive pronouncements.

Without a doubt, the repeated pattern of Ad Hominem responses from the FG reveals an unfortunate reluctance to engage in serious discourse. This is dangerous for several reasons.

First, it discourages constructive criticism.  When public figures who speak out are met with personal attacks rather than rational debate, it creates a chilling effect. Other stakeholders, including civil society and the media, may become wary of critiquing the government for fear of similar backlash.

In a similar vein, it undermines democracy. This is as a healthy democracy thrives on debates, disagreements, and discourse. Therefore, when government officials choose insults over engagement, they erode the democratic culture of accountability and transparency.

Also in a similar vein, it distracts from real issues. By attacking the messenger, the FG often ignores the message. This lack of engagement means critical national issues, whether insecurity, the economy, or governance, remain unaddressed while political mudslinging takes center stage.

Having opined as much as harangued in this context, it is germane to sound a note of warning that the way forward is for the FG to always respond with facts, not insults, when critiqued.

In fact, if the FG is confident in its policies and governance, it should have no difficulty responding to criticisms with facts. In the view of this writer, the government can change its approach by engaging criticism with data, acknowledge criticism and improve in the area or areas they were faulted of, and encourage intellectual discourse.

Explanatorily put, if Obasanjo criticizes the economic trajectory, the FG should provide verifiable data showing why his concerns are misplaced or exaggerated. Simply calling him a hypocrite does nothing to educate the Nigerian populace.

In a similar vein, not every critique is baseless. Instead of outright dismissals, the government can acknowledge valid points and outline measures being taken to address them.

Also in a similar vein, it is not a misnomer to opine that Nigeria needs a political culture that encourages robust and fact-based discussions. The presidency should set the tone by engaging critics constructively rather than reducing public discourse to name-calling.

In fact, the FG’s repeated use of Ad Hominem attacks against Obasanjo’s criticisms is not just counterproductive, it is a disservice to Nigerians. Whether one agrees with Obasanjo’s views or not, the issues he raises deserve serious engagement, not flippant insults. If the government truly serves the people, then it must prioritize responding with reason, facts, and solutions rather than indulging in personal attacks.

Against the backdrop of the foregoing view, it is not a misnomer to conclude that is time for the FG to elevate its discourse and prove that it is a government capable of engaging in rational debate. Anything less is a betrayal of democratic principles.

Joshua Beckford gained worldwide recognition as the youngest person ever to study at Oxford University.

The youngster was admitted at age six (taking part in courses which were part of an online learning platform for gifted children) and gained distinctions in both Philosophy and History.

When Beckford’s father, Knox Daniel, wrote to Oxford University advocating for his son’s admission, it was a bold move to challenge the conventional age limits for a programme aimed at children aged eight to 13.

His record remains unmatched, with the next youngest Oxford student being at least two years older at the time of admission.

By 10 months old, Beckford could already identify letters and numbers. At age two and a half, he could read fluently using phonics and had begun learning Japanese and some Mandarin.

Aspiring to become a neurosurgeon, Beckford has already demonstrated remarkable medical knowledge. Using the Microsoft Surgery Simulator, he has mastered complex surgical procedures, including cataract removal, hernia repair and leg fracture correction. His proficiency with surgical instruments showcases his extraordinary abilities beyond his years.

Beyond medicine, Beckford is multi-talented, excelling in art, Information Technology (IT), sports and foreign languages.

In 2017, Beckford was named Positive Role Model of the Year at the UK’s National Diversity Awards.

The Illumination Foundation of North Carolina also listed him among the Top 30 Most Extraordinary People worldwide who have made societal impact.

Beckford serves as an ambassador for the Boys Mentoring Advocacy Network (BMAN), a non-governmental organisation dedicated to mentoring young boys and adolescents in Africa. Within BMAN, he holds the role of Low-Income Families Education (L.I.F.E) Support Ambassador across six countries: Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, South Africa and the United Kingdom where he was born.

Joshua Beckford also serves as the face of the National Autistic Society’s Black and Minority (BME) campaign. Diagnosed with high-functioning autism himself, he helps to spread the campaign’s mission.

In 2019, Beckford and his father travelled to Nigeria to launch a live mentoring session, delivering a keynote speech at the University of Lagos before an audience of nearly 5,000 people. Their visit was to raise funds for building a secondary school in Kaduna State, providing education to children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

According to a statement on UNILAG’s website, the proposed school was to include classrooms, an administrative block, a laboratory, an ICT Centre and an agriculture green garden and was to be named Joshua Beckford Community School.

[Opinion Nigeria]

The grouse Nigerians hold against their government has never been limited to the executive arm of government despite the abundance of evidence that it is the most powerful arm of government which usually dictates the direction other arms of government will take.

While democracy predicts and prescribes separation of powers and checks and balances as necessary preservatives for democracy, these lines as salutary as they are or promise to be become easily blurred or pale into insignificance, especially when the executive is a bully, which bludgeons other arms of government into submission.

Thus, over the years, as much as Nigerians have learnt to make the executive consisting of the presidency and governors and all agencies of state at all levels the target of their ire, the judiciary, and legislature have not been spare and for good reason. For it should never be the case that democracy is weaned of the vigilance of citizens which makes it so effective.

Historically, Nigerians take a dim view of their legislators. This view only grew dimmer on the 6th day of March 2025 when the Nigerian senate suspended Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, the senator representing Kogi Central senatorial zone in the senate for six months. In imposing what is a draconian punishment by any measure, the senate ruled that Senator Natasha breached its standing rules, thereby subjecting the senate to opprobrium.

The suspension whichh came only after the senator accused Godswill Akpabio, the senate president, of sexual harassment and even submitted a petition to that effect has mobilized large sections of Nigerians against the senate, especially its leadership.
Nigeria’s senate which is made up of 109 members can call on only four women. With the suspension now whittling down that number to three, many have interpreted the move which came days before the annual celebration of International Women’s Day (March 8) as an attack on women, especially on the dwindling representation of women in politics.

On her part, Senator Natasha has refused to take her suspension lying down. On March 11, 2025, she took her case to the Women in Parliament session of the Inter-Parliamentary Union Meeting in New York where she broke down in tears while narrating her ordeal.

There is no doubt that this case is the most embarrassing case to involve the Nigerian senate in recent times. On the one hand, is a woman raising the weighty matter of sexual harassment. From all indications, not only has the senate which is dominated by men, given very short shrift to a serious allegation of sexual harassment, it is determined to send a message that any future and further smear will not be tolerated.

What should not be tolerated in Nigeria today is institutional impunity. What should have absolutely no place in Nigeria if the country wants to grow is systemic manipulation and oppression.

What is happening with Senator Natasha is a situation where an institution and its men are arrayed against a woman who is also clearly a victim. Experience shows that the victim in such situations hardly ever wins. But the victory is hardly ever in the outcome. Instead, it shines forth more in the fight.

The Nigerian. Senate may think that having heavily pummeled a first-time senator for daring to step out of line, others will watch their steps next time.

However, with Senator Natasha having aired the dirty linens of the senate in far away New York before a gaping world, there is surely no coming back from this catastrophic loss of face for the senate in the 10th National Assembly.
Even if Senator Natasha is peddling falsehood to damage the reputation of the senate president, and this is highly unlikely, it is not unthinkable that women should get away with some things. Men have been getting away with countless things for as long as the world has existed and the world has not ended because of that.