Cyprus promoted its business environment and opportunities in financial technology at an international blockchain summit held in Washington and New York between September 29 and October 2, with government representatives taking part in discussions on digital assets, regulation and cross-border innovation.
The Ministry of Energy, Commerce and Industry represented the Republic of Cyprus through its New York Trade Centre at the summit, entitled The Future of Money, Governance, and the Law 2026.
The event was organised by the international non-profit Government Blockchain Association and brought together senior policymakers, business leaders, investors and technology specialists.
Discussions focused on the implications of artificial intelligence, blockchain and quantum computing for international governance and financial infrastructure, alongside regulatory frameworks and digital assets.
During the summit, the New York Trade Centre operated an information stand to present Cyprus as a European business hub and outline its prospects in innovation and financial technology, commonly known as fintech.
Visitors were also briefed on the island’s business and regulatory environment and the advantages available to companies operating from Cyprus through its membership of the European Union’s single market.
Cyprus’ Trade Counsellor in New York, Aristos Constantinou, also took part in a round-table discussion at the US Capitol alongside American officials and industry figures.
Participants included Charles Hoskinson, co-founder of Ethereum and founder of Cardano, with discussions focusing on regulation, digital sovereignty and cross-border innovation.
The summit concluded on October 2 with a forum at the United Nations headquarters in New York, examining the impact of emerging technologies on financial systems.
Constantinou participated as a panellist alongside Michael Terpin, a digital assets entrepreneur and investor, and Anthony Howell, director and representative of the government of Bermuda in Washington.
The discussion, which examined international cooperation on the regulatory oversight of digital assets, was moderated by Heather Leigh Flannery, co-founder and chair of the board of Blockchain in Healthcare Global.
The ministry said Cyprus’ participation formed part of its efforts to strengthen the international reach of Cypriot service providers and promote the island as an international business centre.
The initiative also sought to highlight Cyprus’ growth prospects in the digital economy and emerging technologies, the ministry added.
One of my favorite cartoons growing up was "The Jetsons." The Jetsons were a futuristic family living among the clouds with a fully automated life, from a robot maid named Rosie to technology that could make your dinner or do your laundry in just a few seconds at the push of a button. Everyone’s favorite aspect of this futuristic cartoon lifestyle boiled down to one element, which has become somewhat of a benchmark for technological progress: flying cars. And with Tesla’s recent exhibition, we are one step closer to that Jetsons-esque reality.
If you haven’t seen the video, Tesla did a demonstration of their forthcoming Roadster vehicle, slated for 2028 production. The car swooped up a half-loop ramp reminiscent of Matchbox car stunts. At the top of the ramp, the car, which was upside down at the top, flipped over in midair. Then, thrusters seemed to suspend the car in midair, before helping guide it gently back down to land on the ground.
For just a few moments, that car flew, and it was truly awe-inspiring.
The reactions to this engineering feat and demonstration spectacle are somewhat of a Rorschach test. Those who love building, progress, technology or who are just generally optimistic have seen this demonstration as a formidable, impressive achievement. Those who like to see things torn down or are generally naysayers or obstacle formers react with "it’s not that big of a deal" or give other criticisms.
Fortunately, America still has enough people committed to the entrepreneurial spirit to attract the likes of Elon Musk and provide a good home base for his talented team members and others who want to see Musk, America and human beings in general succeed.
It isn’t hyperbole to say that Elon Musk is one of, if not the greatest, entrepreneurs of modern times. Regardless of any personal feelings or thoughts about Musk, if you can separate the art from the artist, or in his case, the entrepreneur from his business accomplishments, objectively, Musk has done the unthinkable time and time again. And we, as a country, are better off for him doing it from America as his home base.
As my husband and I talked about Musk’s varying accomplishments, from his early work in online payments to his achievements in electric vehicle manufacturing and AI, to his SpaceX being able to catch rocket boosters returning to the Earth from outer space upon landing, and now this latest hovering automobile. We discussed that Musk reportedly held discussions with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company regarding a potential collaboration for his "Terafab" semiconductor facility in Texas. I mentioned that chip buildout had faced major challenges elsewhere, and my husband pointed out that it is different under Musk, saying, "In fact, we need 16,000 more Elon Musks."
No, Elon Musk does not succeed on his own. There are many team members alongside him in undertaking outrageous projects and often making them succeed. But there’s something about Musk’s vision, leadership, hiring and willingness to inspire confidence in others, both on his team and in the general public, that makes his teams continue to be successful. And we need more of that.
We need to not only attract and inspire those who may even be just a little bit like Musk, to dream bigger and bolder, to take calculated risks and try and try again when things don’t work the first time. And we need to make sure that we incentivize that behavior, instead of trying to penalize it or throw up roadblocks.
In our own government, which is supposed to help vs. hinder entrepreneurs, we have politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is noted for going after Elon Musk because of his success, instead of trying to figure out a way to foster more Musk-like successes. After a vastly-ridiculed post made earlier this week from Warren lamenting, of all things, a possible merger between companies that make various spices and condiments, Mike Solana, CMO of Founders Fund and EIC of Pirate Wires, posted on X (also owned by Musk), highlighting the stark differences between the politician Warren and the creator Musk.
His post said, "liz warren: we’re gonna stop the mayonnaise company from buying a hot sauce company." He then said, "elon musk:," and included the video from Musk of the Roadster’s hovering feat, perfectly illustrating how some in our country are erecting barriers and others are breaking barriers.
America was founded on an idea of individual rights and incentives that rewarded successful pursuits, with such rewards growing at scale. We are very fortunate that we have Elon Musk and others who are pushing boundaries, bringing us into new frontiers, allowing Americans who work for him, who invest with him and who use his products or services to benefit alongside of him.
America seems to be on the precipice of a future technological golden age. Whether we take steps toward that future could depend on which political vision prevails over the next few election cycles.
Speaking alongside President Donald Trump at the White House in September, Elon Musk predicted a world where artificial intelligence and advanced robotics create an "age of abundance." Musk suggests these technologies could eventually provide your average person with better medical care than what today’s wealthiest individuals enjoy.
This optimistic vision aligns well with Trump’s repeated promises of a new American golden age. Yet, as his administration works to accelerate technological advancement, an increasingly influential wing on the far left appears determined to slam on the brakes.
Trump’s vision of a golden age
The Trump administration has made American leadership in artificial intelligence a cornerstone of its economic agenda. Through its AI Action Plan and executive orders, the administration has prioritized eliminating regulatory barriers, constructing data centers and expanding energy infrastructure necessary to power the AI revolution.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has argued that AI and automation could help create a new era of American manufacturing. In an interview from 2025, Bessent suggested that the advanced "smart factories" of tomorrow could overcome labor-cost issues, making manufacturing in the United States far more economically feasible.
Imagine a future in America where advanced robotics makes domestic manufacturing globally competitive, where AI leads to major medical breakthroughs and where technological innovation produces unprecedented economic prosperity.
Of course, there are legitimate questions about how this societal transformation will unfold, but the potential benefits are incredible.
The far left wants to hit the brakes
While many in the Trump administration plan for a golden age, Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and his fellow democratic socialists are promoting an entirely different future.
In March, Sanders and New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed a nationwide moratorium on new data center construction until Congress establishes a sufficient regulatory system for the industry.
These positions have quickly become commonplace for Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) activists and candidates. Many of these DSA-endorsed candidates support data center moratoriums and push these sorts of proposals at the state and local level.
But Sanders’ anti-AI sentiment goes way further. His American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act would effectively nationalize 50% of the AI industry, converting those stakes into a government-controlled fund. The plan would also include stacking the boards of these companies with federally picked appointees to influence corporate decisions.
More recently, Sanders introduced legislation that would permanently prohibit the development of artificial superintelligence. This plan would establish a new federal AI agency and halt other advanced AI development until regulators approve continued efforts. Under this proposal, individuals who violate the research bans could face up to 20 years in federal prison.
Think about that. At a time when America is competing with China for technological supremacy, one of the country’s most prominent socialist politicians wants federal bureaucrats to target AI scientists with potential prison time for developing AI research it deems too advanced.
To be sure, the AI revolution comes with many legitimate concerns that deserve conversation. Potential job displacement, privacy violations, algorithmic manipulation and the possible misuse of advanced AI are issues that will likely need to be addressed.
However, the consequences of deliberately suppressing technological innovation are rarely given equal attention.
Consider the potential benefits of AI-assisted drug discovery, which could lead to better treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s and many other conditions. AI-enhanced robotics and logistics could transform manufacturing, increase agricultural output and help elderly and disabled Americans maintain their independence.
Imagine the lives and the industries that could be saved and the economic opportunities that could spring up from these technologies that we have only now begun to understand.
Under the far left’s proposals, we may never see these benefits materialize. Sanders says he is concerned that average Americans will be left behind in the AI revolution, but his proposed restrictions threaten to undermine the very innovations that could cause growth in societal prosperity.
China won’t be hitting the brakes
Perhaps the most concerning consequence of the far left’s vision is America’s geopolitical future.
Like America, China is also pursuing AI at breakneck speeds. While America has enjoyed a substantial lead in this race, the recent Stanford University 2026 AI Index showed the performance gap between American and Chinese models has effectively disappeared.
The proposals from Sanders and the far left to stall AI research and data center construction give the Chinese Communist Party opportunity to pull ahead in the AI race. If China were to take the lead in the AI race, America’s global status economically and geopolitically could be severely diminished.
At the same White House meeting where Musk outlined his optimistic vision of the future, Trump warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping "will take every data center that we don’t want."
The AI revolution carries great potential for increased prosperity unlike anything we have seen in our lifetime. It would be a historic tragedy if America surrendered that opportunity because our politicians were more afraid of technological progress than our geopolitical rivals.
Two hundred years ago, the invention of Braille allowed blind people to read and write. By the 1930s, recorded sound made "talking books" possible. Developments in text-to-speech technology in the 1980s made reading more accessible and widespread. Then came personal computers, screen readers, smartphones, cameras, GPS, voice assistants, and myriad other technological advancements that gave blind people more independence.
Now a pair of sunglasses can read your mail, describe the person in front of you, tell you what is on a restaurant menu, and help you find your way home. Meta, the parent company of Facebook, is using artificial intelligence to turn glasses into a hands-free companion. For any person, this technology is impressive. For the approximately 700,000 Americans who are blind, it is potentially life-changing.
In June, Meta announced that every single blind veteran in the United States could receive its AI glasses free of charge. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs (V.A.), approximately 130,000 American veterans are legally blind, and over 1 million veterans have vision impairment that makes performing daily activities difficult. Don Overton, a blind veteran and former executive director of the Blinded Veterans Association, told Meta that he had "lost [his] independence" after losing his eyesight in a bunker explosion. "The moment I put on my Ray-Ban Meta glasses," he said, "I got my independence back."
The V.A. has a history of failing to fully support blind veterans. In 2022, the V.A.'s Office of Inspector General found that claims processors were instructed to contact visually impaired veterans by telephone, but 87 percent of claims showed no evidence of these calls ever happening. A 2022 investigation by the Senate's Special Committee on Aging found that "roughly 90 percent" of V.A. websites were not compliant with federal accessibility requirements. "We feel we've been abandoned by the agency that is tasked with providing our care and services for us," Overton toldThe Washington Post in 2022.
Meta's AI glasses have come under fire due to their privacy risks. The company was sued in March after Swedish publications Svenska Dagbladet and Göteborgs-Postenreportedly found that Meta's contractors in Kenya were accessing videos by users of their AI glasses. "We see everything, from living rooms to naked bodies," one worker noted.
Users should be aware of those risks. Still, for blind veterans, companies such as Meta have stepped up to fill a gap that the government has failed to address.
The federal government just closed fiscal year 2026 with a deficit of nearly $2 trillion, according to figures the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released last Thursday. Only the two pandemic years of 2020 and 2021 were worse. Today, though, there is no recession and no emergency. These enormous budget deficits are the new normal.
The usual response to a deficit warning is that the government just needs more money. It doesn't. Thanks to the remarkable strength of the private sector, federal revenue rose by 3 percent, to more than $5.4 trillion, over the fiscal year. But spending rose by 6 percent, reaching $7.4 trillion.
Some will blame the Supreme Court for striking down most of President Donald Trump's tariffs and forcing the government to issue refunds. But even if Washington had kept the $130 billion in illegal levies, it would cover less than one-tenth of the gap. Tariffs were never a serious revenue source at our insanely high level of spending.
Look at where the money went. Spending on the three main entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—grew by 7 percent. That's faster than total spending growth. Defense grew by 5 percent. Interest on the debt rose by 11 percent, exceeding $1.1 trillion. That last figure is the bill for every earlier year of borrowing—years when Washington was sending clear signals that it isn't serious about fiscal responsibility.
If you want to see where such irresponsibility can lead, look at France. The country that big spenders from Paul Krugman to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) have cited as proof that big government is viable and full of upsides is now on the brink of a serious crisis. France's debt equals 120 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), and interest payments are rising quickly. Slow growth and social unrest aren't helping.
The U.S., of course, has some advantages that France doesn't, largely because we're a country of innovators with a private sector unmatched at creating wealth. Nonetheless, debt that is swelling out of control should still worry us. First, the same anti-wealth and anti-growth forces that brought France to where it is now are gaining popularity here. Second, we too will see debt reach 120 percent of GDP in a few years, and our interest payments are already consuming an alarming share of resources.
A wise Congress would put us on safer footing if only because debt raises interest rates for everyone, from homebuyers to small businesses. This operates as a drag on growth, and hence on wages. In other words, controlling debt should be part of an affordability agenda in the same way as streamlining regulation.
When legislators decide to take affordability seriously, I recommend looking at a September Advancing American Freedom (AAF) report on this topic. Its section on fiscal restraint offers a useful menu of reforms, including targeting the programs that most drive the debt.
Start with Social Security. Under current law, benefits will be cut by roughly 20 percent when the program's trust fund runs dry in the early 2030s. Nobody believes Congress will actually let that happen, but we'd better hope its answer isn't to double down by borrowing the difference between payroll taxes and benefits.
Nor are tax increases an option. The payroll tax meant to fund entitlements is now 12.4 percent of wages. It began at 2 percent when Social Security was first rolled out. It is also the most burdensome tax for many Americans. Enough already. The fixes AAF fellow Rachel Greszler proposes are worth considering: Index the retirement age to life expectancy, use an accurate inflation measure for cost-of-living adjustments, and move gradually toward a flat universal benefit that protects lower-income retirees while ending Social Security's de facto welfare for the wealthiest.
Next is Medicare. More than 40 percent of its financing already comes from general revenue rather than from payroll taxes. The report recommends converting the program to premium support, giving beneficiaries a fixed contribution to spend on traditional Medicare or on competing private plans. It would also raise the eligibility age to 67, matching Social Security, and trim subsidies for well-off seniors. That's a start.
As for Medicaid, the problem is one of pricing. And yet competition based on price—the best cost-control tool—has never been seriously tried. Washington covers 90 percent of the cost of states' expanded Medicaid programs for adults. A state can buy a dollar of spending with just a dime of its own money. Changing the states' incentives would be key here. Implementing risk-adjusted per-capita caps, through which the federal government would give states a fixed amount per enrollee, would do just that. States would pay for their own inefficiencies or would be able to use every dollar they save by becoming more efficient.
The same logic supports returning more welfare programs to states, starting with the federal share of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. State governments have to balance their budgets in some form.
None of these reforms are painless. But the alternatives will prove far more painful. The U.S. will either continue paying a slow, unlegislated tax called inflation or face a fast, ugly fiscal crisis when bond buyers stop giving Washington the benefit of the doubt.
Europe has plenty of world-class research, talent and creativity. However, too often ideas originating in Europe are turned into economic success by others, elsewhere. This is because European innovators face barriers here and find it difficult to bring their ideas to life. As a result, the Commission proposed a new European innovation act to help Europe's most innovative ideas be developed, financed and scaled up in Europe.
To strengthen the EU innovation system, the proposal will address two main challenges. Firstly, it will help innovative companies access financing by
promoting a common EU framework to value intellectual property
creating a digital marketplace connecting buyers and sellers of intellectual property
offering expert support to help companies bring their ideas to the market
This can unlock €10.2 billion per year in additional financing and generate around €35 million in administrative cost savings.
Second, it will establish a common approach for research and development procurement that
will provide greater legal certainty
help new technologies reach the market faster
make it easier for public buyers from different EU countries to jointly carry out Research and Development procurements.
With this, companies could expect €25.92 billion in additional annual profits, while public buyers could save €1 billion per year.
The European innovation act is an element of thecompetitiveness compass, to strengthen the EU's long-term competitiveness, prosperity and technological sovereignty. In parallel, the Commission will help innovators accelerate the transformation of innovative ideas into market solutions through a specific proposal on regulatory sandboxes.
The European Commission wants to cut the EU’s public procurement rulebook from around 900 pages to 200, in a sweeping reform that aims to simplify tendering while giving governments greater scope to favour European economic and security interests, writes Catherine Feore.
Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné held up the existing body of rules alongside its much slimmer replacement, to illustrate his point.
“These here are the European rules which currently govern public procurement in Europe: 900 pages,” he said. “And this is what we are proposing today… down to 200 pages.”
The proposed Public Procurement Act would replace three EU procurement directives with a single regulation, with a view to simplifying procurement provisions spread across 26 sectoral laws and cutting the number of procedures from five to three.
The Commission estimates the changes could save businesses and public authorities €650 million a year in administrative costs.
The reform matters because of Europe’s massive purchasing power involved. EU public procurement exceeds €2.5 trillion annually, around 15% of EU GDP, covering everything from trains and hospitals to energy infrastructure, schools and IT systems.
From lowest price to strategic purchasing
The proposal is not just about cutting red tape. Brussels wants governments to use their purchasing power more strategically.
The Best Price-Quality Ratio would become the standard method for awarding contracts, with quality normally accounting for at least 30% of the assessment and 50% for labour-intensive contracts. Authorities could consider environmental and social performance, innovation, security and resilience alongside price.
The commitment to a so-called European preference has been tempered by the EU’s international commitments, but access can be restricted when a country doesn’t reciprocate market access. Restrictions could also be imposed where reliance on foreign suppliers creates security-of-supply dependencies or threatens EU economic security.
“European public money should, wherever possible, create jobs, investment and opportunities in Europe rather than filling the order books of our competitors,” Séjourné said.
Five procurement procedures would become three: open, dynamic and innovation procedures. Each would allow negotiation between buyers and bidders.
The Commission also plans an integrated EU digital procurement marketplace connecting national e-procurement platforms. A company registered through one connected system should be able to bid elsewhere in Europe without repeatedly submitting the same documentation. This is intended to reduce bureaucracy and tackle one of the current system's weaknesses: too little competition, particularly from SMEs and companies bidding across borders.
National, regional and local priorities may appreciate this flexibility in theory, but constrained budgets often mean that price will remain the bottom line for many. This legislation offers greater freedom in determining needs, but it remains to be seen what its impact will be.
On June 17, 2026, the European Parliament formally adopted regulations governing “New Genomic Techniques” (NGTs), marking a major turning point for European agriculture.
The decision paves the way for a new generation of genetically modified crops capable of withstanding drought and disease, but it has also raised legitimate concerns about the privatization of living organisms and potential environmental risks. The debate has divided the continent, pitting supporters of technological innovation against advocates of traditional farming.
What are NGTs and how do they differ from traditional GMOs?
NGTs, or New Genomic Techniques, represent a significant advance in plant genome editing. Unlike first-generation genetically modified organisms, which involve introducing foreign DNA from different species, NGTs operate on a fundamentally different principle.
These techniques allow scientists to modify a plant’s genome using only genes originating from the same species. For example, it may now be possible to make a tomato more resistant to aphids by transferring a gene from another naturally resistant tomato variety. Although these plants are technically genetically modified organisms, seeds produced through NGTs are not transgenic—a distinction that plays a key role in European regulations.
Two categories of NGTs and different regulatory standards
The compromise negotiated by the European Commission and member states established a two-tier classification system. Category 1 NGTs, involving a limited number of naturally occurring mutations, will be treated as equivalent to conventional varieties and will benefit from partial deregulation.
By contrast, NGTs engineered for herbicide resistance or designed to produce insecticides will not be authorized for commercial use, in the interest of sustainability and environmental protection.
Another major restriction is that no NGT crops will be allowed in organic farming, creating a clear divide between agricultural production using these technologies and certified organic agriculture.
European agriculture confronts climate challenges
Supporters of NGTs—including major farming organizations such as Copa-Cogeca and leading European seed companies—argue that these technologies are essential for maintaining competitiveness and adapting to climate change. NGTs could significantly accelerate the development of crop varieties capable of tolerating severe drought and extreme heat, both of which are becoming increasingly common across Europe.
For some farmers, particularly in the French Caribbean territories, NGTs offer a practical solution to existing plant diseases. Banana plantations, for example, have been devastated by black Sigatoka, a destructive fungal disease against which NGTs could provide natural resistance. Such practical applications have helped mobilize support within the agricultural sector for the new regulations.
Advocates also emphasize that the European Union is creating a “sovereign European model” distinct from those of the United States and Brazil, with specific safeguards governing approved techniques and strict oversight of the sector.
Environmental concerns and the privatization of life
Critics of NGTs raise fundamental concerns about agricultural sustainability and intellectual property rights. According to opponents, the safety of NGTs for human health and the environment has not been sufficiently established through democratic processes. They are calling for mandatory traceability and a ban on patenting living organisms.
Farmers’ unions such as the Confédération Paysanne view NGTs as a “Trojan horse” for major seed and agrochemical corporations. Their primary concern is the gradual monopolization of seeds by a handful of agribusiness giants, forcing smaller seed companies and farmers to pay licensing fees. Critics argue that such a trend could accelerate crop uniformity and reduce agricultural biodiversity.
They also warn that increasing corporate control over genetic resources could marginalize small farmers and undermine their autonomy. Thomas Gibert, a market gardener in Haute-Vienne and spokesperson for the Confédération Paysanne, has described the issue as a “major risk” involving the “privatization” of life driven by the “ultra-powerful agribusiness lobby.”
The european parliament’s decision-making process
The European Parliament approved the NGT regulation on June 17, 2026, after rejecting all amendments proposed by Green and Socialist lawmakers. These amendments sought to make traceability mandatory and prohibit patent protection for NGTs, two measures strongly supported by left-wing parties and environmental groups.
The legislation ultimately received broad political support, ranging from the centrist Renew group to the far right, with backing from the European People’s Party. This unusual coalition illustrates how NGTs have transcended traditional political divisions, bringing together pro-competitiveness forces around a technological agenda.
Centrist Member of the European Parliament Pascal Canfin defended the measure, saying, “We have created a sovereign European model for new genomic techniques that will serve our farmers,” underscoring Europe’s geopolitical ambitions in the face of global agricultural powers.
Scientific assessments and the timeline for market introduction
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) endorsed the European Commission’s approach to authorizing NGTs. However, other scientific bodies have adopted a more cautious stance. In 2024, France’s National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety (ANSES) recommended case-by-case evaluations of potential health and environmental risks before any products are marketed.
These differing approaches reflect the lack of a complete scientific consensus regarding the long-term implications of NGTs. Despite the swift adoption of the legislation, several years are expected to pass before foods produced using NGTs actually reach European consumers. The interval between the testing of new varieties and their commercial release will remain substantial.
Balancing innovation and caution
The legalization of NGTs marks a significant shift in Europe’s agricultural strategy in response to climate change and increasing global competition. Yet the move also highlights unresolved tensions between the drive for technological innovation and legitimate concerns regarding the environment, public health, and the concentration of economic power within the food sector.
The challenge now lies in the practical implementation of the NGT regulations. Safeguards such as the prohibition of herbicide-resistant NGTs and their exclusion from organic farming represent important protective measures. Nevertheless, the issue of mandatory traceability remains highly controversial, with major implications for consumer transparency and the protection of small farmers’ interests.
Ultimately, the success or failure of Europe’s NGT experiment will depend largely on the ability of regulators to ensure rigorous oversight, maintain transparent communication with the public, and continuously adapt regulations in light of emerging scientific evidence. Europe has embarked on a narrow path between necessary technological innovation and the precautionary principles that have long defined its approach.
Login
